DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examination Status
In response to the Notice of Appeal filed 10/20/2025 and the Appeal Brief filed 12/18/2025, an Appeal Conference was held on 03/26/2026 with Examiner Glenn and Supervisory Patent Examiners Jelani Smith and Peter Nolan. During the Appeal Conference, it was determined that the arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 26 are persuasive and the arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) over Pinsonnault, Noble, and Hughes were partially persuasive. Accordingly, the previous office action has been withdrawn, and prosecution has been reopened. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 26 has been withdrawn. The 35 USC 103 rejection(s) over Pinsonnault and Noble, and Pinsonnault, Noble, and Hughes have been withdrawn. This second non-final rejection is issued to correct the deficiencies of the previous office action(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 11-23, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17, Applicant argues that Pinsonnault, Noble, and Hughes fail to teach or suggest “one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule” as recited in claim 1 and found in similar language in claims 9 and 17. The Examiner is in partial agreement with Applicant’s arguments.
Regarding the one or more robots, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Noble fails to teach or suggest one or more robots and notes that Noble provides such robots in at least FIG. 1, [0005], and [0018], wherein the one or more robots correspond to the mobile pods/recharging pods of Noble. However, the Examiner is in agreement that Noble fails to fully teach or suggest each of the claimed features of the one or more robots, namely the performance of “various different maintenance operations” in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Pinsonnault and Hughes fail to cure this deficiency.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. Upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Pinsonnault and Boggio, and Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio. Noble is no longer relied upon for teaching any of the limitations of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 23-24, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument that “maintenance scheduling” differs from the previously mentioned “maintenance schedule” and that the claim is therefore definite. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 26 has been withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault et al. (US 2018/0121887 A1), hereinafter Pinsonnault, in view of Boggio (US 2016/0305848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pinsonnault teaches a system, comprising:
one or more control units configured to receive compiled flight data for a plurality of aircraft of a fleet from a flight data aggregator sub-system,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time."
wherein the one or more control units are configured to: automatically determine aircraft utilization for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10 Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
and automatically determine a maintenance schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0204]): "FIG. 3 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to predetermined structural maintenance programs 58, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to predetermined maintenance programs 58 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined maintenance programs 58 where each description may be associated with a unique maintenance program ID. The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21. Each maintenance program 58 may have an aircraft utilization category 59 associated thereto so that, for example, a less severe utilization of aircraft 10 may require a less severe maintenance program 58." Pinsonnault even further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
wherein the maintenance schedule includes various different maintenance operations;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0204]): "The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0218]): "As explained above, predetermined maintenance programs 58 at the aircraft level may be determined, for example, by way of combination of a plurality of predetermined maintenance programs 58 respectively associated with a plurality of structural elements 21 of the aircraft 10 so that an overall aircraft-level predetermined maintenance program 58 may be defined."
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Boggio teaches a robotic maintenance system for aircraft, comprising:
and one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule.
Boggio teaches ([0010]): "The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for determining, using the processor, a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed. The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, ordering a robot to perform maintenance on the platform. The system further includes the robot in communication with the processor." Boggio further teaches ([0045]): "In turn, this filled-in data table may be used to determine when maintenance is to be performed on the air conditioning system of an aircraft. For example, if the readings vary greatly at the first trim air valve relative to expected values, then this fact may indicate that one or more parts in the air conditioning system that service the first trim air valve may require maintenance. Appropriate maintenance and inspection may then be performed, either by technicians or perhaps automatically using one or more robots." Boggio even further teaches ([0090]): "The process may then determine a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed (operation 712). The process may then, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, cause maintenance to be performed on the platform..." The Examiner has interpreted the performance of maintenance on more than one part as various different maintenance operations. Boggio is modified such that the order received by the one or more robots is combined with the maintenance schedule of Pinsonnault. While the above example refers to performing maintenance on "a part", one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adapt the teachings of Boggio such that maintenance is performed on each part of the parts, if the status of multiple parts indicates that maintenance is due.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault to incorporate the teachings of Boggio to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Pinsonnault and Boggio are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft maintenance systems. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Boggio, as incorporating the one or more robots of Boggio beneficially allows for appropriate maintenance and inspection performed by the one or more robots, including performing maintenance on one or more parts of an aircraft, as recognized by Boggio (see at least [0010] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Pinsonnault further teaches:
a user interface having an electronic display,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0193]): "Apparatus 28 may comprise one or more display devices coupled to computer 40 to permit communication of information to a user of apparatus 38 via suitable graphic user interface (GUI). Such display may be used to visually communicate information such as output data 50 of computer 40 to a user."
wherein the one or more control units are further configured to output one or more electronic signals to the user interface, wherein the one or more electronic signals include data regarding the aircraft utilization, and wherein the user interface receives the electronic signals to show the aircraft utilization on the display.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0193]): "Apparatus 28 may comprise one or more display devices coupled to computer 40 to permit communication of information to a user of apparatus 38 via suitable graphic user interface (GUI). Such display may be used to visually communicate information such as output data 50 of computer 40 to a user." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0222]): "The data shown in FIG. 8 may be stored in memory 48 and used as a basis for generating output data 50 shown in FIG. 2. For example, the data of FIG. 8 may comprise an aircraft ID 62 having a particular utilization category 59 assigned thereto via an utilization category ID."
Regarding claim 7, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Pinsonnault further teaches:
the one or more controls units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by computing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
wherein the productivity metric allows for a determination of various different levels of aircraft productivity.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights).
Regarding claim 9, Pinsonnault teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more control units, compiled flight data for a plurality of aircraft of a fleet from a flight data aggregator sub-system;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time."
automatically determining, by the one or more control units, aircraft utilization for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10 Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
automatically determining by the one or more control units, a maintenance schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0204]): "FIG. 3 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to predetermined structural maintenance programs 58, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to predetermined maintenance programs 58 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined maintenance programs 58 where each description may be associated with a unique maintenance program ID. The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21. Each maintenance program 58 may have an aircraft utilization category 59 associated thereto so that, for example, a less severe utilization of aircraft 10 may require a less severe maintenance program 58." Pinsonnault even further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
wherein the maintenance schedule includes various different maintenance operations;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0204]): "The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0218]): "As explained above, predetermined maintenance programs 58 at the aircraft level may be determined, for example, by way of combination of a plurality of predetermined maintenance programs 58 respectively associated with a plurality of structural elements 21 of the aircraft 10 so that an overall aircraft-level predetermined maintenance program 58 may be defined."
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach receiving, by one or more robots, the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units; and performing, by the one or more robots, the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Boggio teaches a robotic maintenance system for aircraft, comprising:
receiving, by one or more robots, the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units; and performing, by the one or more robots, the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft without human intervention according to the maintenance schedule.
Boggio teaches ([0010]): "The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for determining, using the processor, a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed. The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, ordering a robot to perform maintenance on the platform. The system further includes the robot in communication with the processor." Boggio further teaches ([0045]): "In turn, this filled-in data table may be used to determine when maintenance is to be performed on the air conditioning system of an aircraft. For example, if the readings vary greatly at the first trim air valve relative to expected values, then this fact may indicate that one or more parts in the air conditioning system that service the first trim air valve may require maintenance. Appropriate maintenance and inspection may then be performed, either by technicians or perhaps automatically using one or more robots." Boggio even further teaches ([0090]): "The process may then determine a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed (operation 712). The process may then, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, cause maintenance to be performed on the platform..." The Examiner has interpreted the performance of maintenance on more than one part as various different maintenance operations. Boggio is modified such that the order received by the one or more robots is combined with the maintenance schedule of Pinsonnault. While the above example refers to performing maintenance on "a part", one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adapt the teachings of Boggio such that maintenance is performed on each part of the parts, if the status of multiple parts indicates that maintenance is due.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault to incorporate the teachings of Boggio to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, receiving, by one or more robots, the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units; and performing, by the one or more robots, the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft without human intervention according to the maintenance schedule. Pinsonnault and Boggio are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft maintenance systems. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Boggio, as incorporating the one or more robots of Boggio beneficially allows for appropriate maintenance and inspection performed by the one or more robots, including performing maintenance on one or more parts of an aircraft, as recognized by Boggio (see at least [0010] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Pinsonnault further teaches:
receiving, by the flight data aggregator sub-system, flight data for the plurality of aircraft from a plurality of flight data sources.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted each aircraft 10 of the plurality of aircraft 10 as a flight data source.
Regarding claim 14, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Pinsonnault further teaches:
showing, by the one or more control units, the aircraft utilization on an electronic display of a user interface.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0193]): "Apparatus 28 may comprise one or more display devices coupled to computer 40 to permit communication of information to a user of apparatus 38 via suitable graphic user interface (GUI). Such display may be used to visually communicate information such as output data 50 of computer 40 to a user." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0222]): "The data shown in FIG. 8 may be stored in memory 48 and used as a basis for generating output data 50 shown in FIG. 2. For example, the data of FIG. 8 may comprise an aircraft ID 62 having a particular utilization category 59 assigned thereto via an utilization category ID."
Regarding claim 15, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Pinsonnault further teaches:
said automatically determining comprises computing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
wherein the productivity metric allows for a determination of various different levels of aircraft productivity.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Hughes (US 2020/0074411 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the one or more control units are further configured to automatically determine a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Hughes teaches a fleet management system and method, comprising:
the one or more control units are further configured to automatically determine a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet.
Hughes teaches ([0005]): "In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method, performed by a fleet management system, of centrally managing the performance of maintenance on a fleet of vehicles. The method comprises: acquiring one or more criteria specifying vehicle availability for one or more predetermined time periods... determining, based on the one or more criteria, a fleet plan..." Hughes further teaches ([0013]): "The method may further comprise determining, based on the fleet plan, a projected flight profile for the fleet of aircraft over one or more of the predetermined time periods." Hughes even further teaches ([0059]-[0064]): " The criteria may specify, for example: a number of flying hours that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. one week, or one month); ... a number of sorties that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. per day, per week, or per month); a proportion of a given time period in which one or more of the aircraft 104 are to fly or be available to fly (e.g. a number of flying days per month); and that one or more aircraft have enough available flying hours (and/or other properties) to complete a given task (e.g. that enough of the aircraft 104 have enough available flying hours to enable a training task to be completed)."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Hughes to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are further configured to automatically determine a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Hughes are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Hughes, as doing so beneficially allows for the determination of a future flight schedule which considers whether an aircraft is available to fly, as recognized by Hughes (see at least [0013] and [0059]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach automatically determining, by the one or more control units, a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Hughes teaches a fleet management system and method, comprising:
automatically determining, by the one or more control units, a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet.
Hughes teaches ([0005]): "In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method, performed by a fleet management system, of centrally managing the performance of maintenance on a fleet of vehicles. The method comprises: acquiring one or more criteria specifying vehicle availability for one or more predetermined time periods... determining, based on the one or more criteria, a fleet plan..." Hughes further teaches ([0013]): "The method may further comprise determining, based on the fleet plan, a projected flight profile for the fleet of aircraft over one or more of the predetermined time periods." Hughes even further teaches ([0059]-[0064]): " The criteria may specify, for example: a number of flying hours that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. one week, or one month); ... a number of sorties that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. per day, per week, or per month); a proportion of a given time period in which one or more of the aircraft 104 are to fly or be available to fly (e.g. a number of flying days per month); and that one or more aircraft have enough available flying hours (and/or other properties) to complete a given task (e.g. that enough of the aircraft 104 have enough available flying hours to enable a training task to be completed)."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Hughes to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, automatically determining, by the one or more control units, a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Hughes are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Hughes, as doing so beneficially allows for the determination of a future flight schedule which considers whether an aircraft is available to fly, as recognized by Hughes (see at least [0013] and [0059]-[0064]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Hamilton et al. (US 10,102,755 B1), hereinafter Hamilton.
Regarding claim 5, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Pinsonnault further teaches:
the flight data aggregator sub-system receives flight data for the plurality of aircraft from a plurality of flight data sources,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted each aircraft 10 of the plurality of aircraft 10 as a flight data source.
wherein the plurality of flight data sources comprise: the plurality of aircraft;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted each aircraft 10 of the plurality of aircraft 10 as a flight data source.
a ground monitoring station;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10..." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0192]): "Ground facility 24 may comprise a single facility or a combination of two or more facilities. For example, ground facility 24 may include the facility of one or more of: a manufacturer of aircraft 10, a manufacturer of one or more systems or structural elements 21 of an aircraft, an operator of aircraft 10, a maintenance provider for part of aircraft 10, a data service provider and/or any other authorized party involved in the health monitoring, operation and/or maintenance of aircraft 10. Ground facility 24 may comprise a combination of two or more facilities that may be located remotely from each other and between which data transfer may be conducted via known or other means.
However, while Pinsonnault does teach communication between the plurality of aircraft 10 and the ground facility 24 using satellite-based ACARS communication (see at least [0191]-[0198]), Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the plurality of flight data sources comprise: an organization assigned with collecting flight data from the plurality of aircraft, a regulatory body, and a satellite configured to track one or more of the plurality of aircraft. Hamilton teaches a method and system for aircraft positioning, comprising:
an organization assigned with collecting flight data from the plurality of aircraft;
Hamilton teaches (Col. 5 lines 48 - 64): "SwiftBroadband is an IP-based packet-switched communications network that provides a symmetric "always-on" data connection of up to 432 kbits/s per channel for aircraft globally except for the polar regions, using the Inmarsat satellite constellation. The present invention provides methods, systems and devices for real position reports using data from SwiftBroadband or any other satellite system to allow aircraft operator the ability to track their aircraft worldwide and to ensure that the operator knows the aircraft status at all times by using SwiftBroadband position reports that are available worldwide and is updated approximately every two minutes."
a regulatory body;
Hamilton teaches (Col. 2 lines 19-49): "A first embodiment provides an aircraft positioning and automated real time aircraft tracking system using global voice and high-speed data that includes an aircraft communication system for transmitting an aircraft position data and an aircraft identification, a satellite constellation for receiving the transmitted position data and aircraft identification and retransmitting the position data and aircraft identification, and a ground network to receive the transmitted aircraft position and aircraft identification and receive third party aircraft data corresponding to the aircraft identification and calculating real time positional data corresponding to the aircraft identification... The real time flight information can include aircraft speed, aircraft heading, aircraft departure airport, and aircraft arrival airport. The third party real time aircraft flight information can be received from U.S. Federal Aviation Administration FAA, the Canadian aviation authority NAV CANADA..." Hamilton further teaches (Col. 6 lines 40-45): "In the example shown, the calculated departure and arrival airports, aircraft speed and aircraft heading can be combined with position data from other sources such as the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority, the Canadian aviation authority NAV CANADA..."
and a satellite configured to track one or more of the plurality of aircraft.
Hamilton teaches (Col. 5 lines 48 - 64): "SwiftBroadband is an IP-based packet-switched communications network that provides a symmetric "always-on" data connection of up to 432 kbits/s per channel for aircraft globally except for the polar regions, using the Inmarsat satellite constellation. The present invention provides methods, systems and devices for real position reports using data from SwiftBroadband or any other satellite system to allow aircraft operator the ability to track their aircraft worldwide and to ensure that the operator knows the aircraft status at all times by using SwiftBroadband position reports that are available worldwide and is updated approximately every two minutes."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Hamilton to provide that the plurality of flight data sources comprise: an organization assigned with collecting flight data from the plurality of aircraft, a regulatory body, and a satellite configured to track one or more of the plurality of aircraft. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Hamilton are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Further the systems of Pinsonnault and Hamilton each enable satellite-based communication of flight data. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Hamilton, as doing so beneficially allows for obtaining worldwide aircraft tracking and aircraft status at all times by obtaining reports approximately every two minutes, as recognized by Hamilton (see at least Col. 5 lines 48-64).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Jensen et al. (US 2015/0243112 A1), hereinafter Jensen.
Regarding claim 8, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global. Jensen teaches a system for automated recording of aircraft flight and maintenance information, comprising:
the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global,
Jensen teaches ([0010]): "In some embodiments, the method may further comprise the step of identifying the types of data comprised by the aircraft operation data. Additionally, the aircraft operation data may comprise at least one of… flight time… the length of time between pushing back from a gate at the origination airport and arriving at a gate at the landing airport ("block to block time")." Paragraphs [0053]-[0054] indicate that aircraft operation data is monitored for a fleet of aircraft.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Jensen to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Jensen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Jensen, as doing so provides the benefit of checking whether a particular aircraft is compliant with rules governing aircraft operation based on the monitored aircraft operation data, as recognized by Jensen ([0010]).
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach computing a productivity metric based, at least in part, on the global values. Modified Pinsonnault teaches:
and computing a productivity metric based, at least in part, on the global values.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights). Pinsonnault is modified such that "any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10" includes the block time global and flight time of Jensen.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Jensen to further modify the teachings of Pinsonnault such that "any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10" includes the block time global and flight time of Jensen. As recognized by Pinsonnault ([0191]), the actual utilization data 36 can further comprise duration of operation, flight durations and distances, among other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the aircraft utilization. As duration of operation and flight durations are already of concern to Pinsonnault, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the block time of Jensen is highly similar to data already contained within actual utilization data 36, in particular flight time. As recognized by Jensen ([0010]), block to block time refers to the length of time between pushing back form a gate at the origination airport and arriving at a gate a the landing airport. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to include the block time of Jensen would merely require the addition of timespans between gate departure and takeoff; and landing and gate arrival to the already-known flight duration of Pinsonnault.
Regarding claim 16, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that said automatically determining comprises: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global. Jensen teaches a system for automated recording of aircraft flight and maintenance information, comprising:
said automatically determining comprises: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global,
Jensen teaches ([0010]): "In some embodiments, the method may further comprise the step of identifying the types of data comprised by the aircraft operation data. Additionally, the aircraft operation data may comprise at least one of… flight time… the length of time between pushing back from a gate at the origination airport and arriving at a gate at the landing airport ("block to block time")." Paragraphs [0053]-[0054] indicate that aircraft operation data is monitored for a fleet of aircraft.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Jensen to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that said automatically determining comprises: calculating global values for the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include flight time global and block time global. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Jensen are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Jensen, as doing so provides the benefit of checking whether a particular aircraft is compliant with rules governing aircraft operation based on the monitored aircraft operation data, as recognized by Jensen ([0010]).
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach computing a productivity metric based, at least in part, on the global values. Modified Pinsonnault teaches:
and computing a productivity metric based, at least in part, on the global values.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights). Pinsonnault is modified such that "any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10" includes the block time global and flight time of Jensen.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Jensen to further modify the teachings of Pinsonnault such that "any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10" includes the block time global and flight time of Jensen. As recognized by Pinsonnault ([0191]), the actual utilization data 36 can further comprise duration of operation, flight durations and distances, among other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the aircraft utilization. As duration of operation and flight durations are already of concern to Pinsonnault, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the block time of Jensen is highly similar to data already contained within actual utilization data 36, in particular flight time. As recognized by Jensen ([0010]), block to block time refers to the length of time between pushing back form a gate at the origination airport and arriving at a gate a the landing airport. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to include the block time of Jensen would merely require the addition of timespans between gate departure and takeoff; and landing and gate arrival to the already-known flight duration of Pinsonnault.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault in view of Hughes and in further view of Boggio.
Regarding claim 17, Pinsonnault teaches a system, comprising:
one or more control units configured to: receive compiled flight data for a plurality of aircraft of a fleet from a flight data aggregator sub-system,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time."
wherein the flight data aggregator sub-system receives flight data for the plurality of aircraft from a plurality of flight data sources,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted each aircraft 10 of the plurality of aircraft 10 as a flight data source.
automatically determine aircraft utilization for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10 Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
automatically determine a maintenance schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0204]): "FIG. 3 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to predetermined structural maintenance programs 58, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to predetermined maintenance programs 58 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined maintenance programs 58 where each description may be associated with a unique maintenance program ID. The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21. Each maintenance program 58 may have an aircraft utilization category 59 associated thereto so that, for example, a less severe utilization of aircraft 10 may require a less severe maintenance program 58."
wherein the maintenance schedule includes various different maintenance operations,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0204]): "The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0218]): "As explained above, predetermined maintenance programs 58 at the aircraft level may be determined, for example, by way of combination of a plurality of predetermined maintenance programs 58 respectively associated with a plurality of structural elements 21 of the aircraft 10 so that an overall aircraft-level predetermined maintenance program 58 may be defined."
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach automatically determining a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Hughes teaches a fleet management system and method, comprising:
automatically determine a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Hughes teaches ([0005]): "In a first aspect, the present invention provides a method, performed by a fleet management system, of centrally managing the performance of maintenance on a fleet of vehicles. The method comprises: acquiring one or more criteria specifying vehicle availability for one or more predetermined time periods... determining, based on the one or more criteria, a fleet plan..." Hughes further teaches ([0013]): "The method may further comprise determining, based on the fleet plan, a projected flight profile for the fleet of aircraft over one or more of the predetermined time periods." Hughes even further teaches ([0059]-[0064]): " The criteria may specify, for example: a number of flying hours that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. one week, or one month); ... a number of sorties that the fleet of aircraft 104 is to complete or be available to complete within a given time period (e.g. per day, per week, or per month); a proportion of a given time period in which one or more of the aircraft 104 are to fly or be available to fly (e.g. a number of flying days per month); and that one or more aircraft have enough available flying hours (and/or other properties) to complete a given task (e.g. that enough of the aircraft 104 have enough available flying hours to enable a training task to be completed)."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault to incorporate the teachings of Hughes to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, automatically determining a future flight schedule for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet based on the aircraft utilization as automatically determined based on the compiled flight data for the plurality of aircraft of the fleet. Pinsonnault and Hughes are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Hughes, as doing so beneficially allows for the determination of a future flight schedule which considers whether an aircraft is available to fly, as recognized by Hughes (see at least [0013] and [0059]-[0064]).
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Boggio teaches a robotic maintenance system for aircraft, comprising:
and one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule.
Boggio teaches ([0010]): "The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for determining, using the processor, a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed. The computer usable program code includes computer usable program code for, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, ordering a robot to perform maintenance on the platform. The system further includes the robot in communication with the processor." Boggio further teaches ([0045]): "In turn, this filled-in data table may be used to determine when maintenance is to be performed on the air conditioning system of an aircraft. For example, if the readings vary greatly at the first trim air valve relative to expected values, then this fact may indicate that one or more parts in the air conditioning system that service the first trim air valve may require maintenance. Appropriate maintenance and inspection may then be performed, either by technicians or perhaps automatically using one or more robots." Boggio even further teaches ([0090]): "The process may then determine a status of the parts based on the filled data, wherein an analysis is formed (operation 712). The process may then, responsive to the analysis indicating that maintenance is due for a part in the parts, cause maintenance to be performed on the platform..." The Examiner has interpreted the performance of maintenance on more than one part as various different maintenance operations. Boggio is modified such that the order received by the one or more robots is combined with the maintenance schedule of Pinsonnault. While the above example refers to performing maintenance on "a part", one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adapt the teachings of Boggio such that maintenance is performed on each part of the parts, if the status of multiple parts indicates that maintenance is due.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Hughes to incorporate the teachings of Boggio to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, one or more robots configured to: receive the maintenance schedule including the various different maintenance operations from the one or more control units, and perform the various different maintenance operations in relation to one or more of the plurality of aircraft according to the maintenance schedule. Pinsonnault and Boggio are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft maintenance systems. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Boggio, as incorporating the one or more robots of Boggio beneficially allows for appropriate maintenance and inspection performed by the one or more robots, including performing maintenance on one or more parts of an aircraft, as recognized by Boggio (see at least [0010] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 17. Pinsonnault further teaches:
the one or more controls units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by computing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft of the fleet,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
wherein the productivity metric allows for a determination of various different levels of aircraft productivity.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio in view of Bommireddipalli et al. (US 2022/0246042 A1), hereinafter Bommireddipalli.
Regarding claim 19, Pinsonnault, Hughes and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 17. Pinsonnault further teaches:
a user interface having an electronic display,
Pinsonnault teaches ([0193]): "Apparatus 28 may comprise one or more display devices coupled to computer 40 to permit communication of information to a user of apparatus 38 via suitable graphic user interface (GUI). Such display may be used to visually communicate information such as output data 50 of computer 40 to a user."
wherein the one or more control units are further configured to show the aircraft utilization… on the display.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0193]): "Apparatus 28 may comprise one or more display devices coupled to computer 40 to permit communication of information to a user of apparatus 38 via suitable graphic user interface (GUI). Such display may be used to visually communicate information such as output data 50 of computer 40 to a user." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0222]): "The data shown in FIG. 8 may be stored in memory 48 and used as a basis for generating output data 50 shown in FIG. 2. For example, the data of FIG. 8 may comprise an aircraft ID 62 having a particular utilization category 59 assigned thereto via an utilization category ID."
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the one or more control units are further configured to show the maintenance schedule on the display. Hughes further teaches:
wherein the one or more control units are further configured to show… the maintenance schedule… on the display.
Hughes teaches ([0130]): "Returning now to the description of FIG. 3, at step s22, the fleet management system 102 displays the maintenance plan 500 to the user 216 on the user interface 210."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio to further incorporate the teachings of Hughes to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are further configured to show the maintenance schedule on the display. Pinsonnault and Hughes are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Hughes, as displaying the maintenance schedule to the user beneficially allows the user to modify the maintenance plan in response to new information becoming available, as recognized by Hughes ([0137]).
However, neither Pinsonnault nor Hughes outright teach that the one or more control units are further configured to show the future flight schedule on the display. Bommireddipalli teaches an aviation-based platform, comprising:
wherein the one or more control units are further configured to show… the future flight schedule on the display.
Bommireddipalli teaches ([0203]): "Additionally, or alternatively, the process 1400 may include querying a database associated with the aviation-based user platform for flight information associated with the aerial vehicle, the aerial vehicle operator, and a scheduled flight of the aerial vehicle... The process 1400 may also include causing display, on the web page and to the aerial vehicle traveler, a flight schedule corresponding to the flight scheduling data and an indication that the flight schedule is confirmed by the aerial vehicle operator."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Bommireddipalli to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are further configured to show the future flight schedule on the display. Pinsonnault, Hughes, Boggio, and Bommireddipalli are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Bommireddipalli, as the displayed future flight schedule include receive confirmation from an aerial vehicle operator that the flight scheduling data is accurate, as recognized by Bommireddipalli ([0203]).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Goel et al. (US 2018/0091908 A1), hereinafter Goel.
Regarding claim 21, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, neither Pinsonnault nor Boggio outright teach that the one or more control units are configured to allow for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms. Goel teaches UAV behavior analysis, comprising:
the one or more control units are configured to allow for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms.
Goel teaches ([0075]): "In some implementations, UAV services platform 230 may provide anomaly detection and fraud prevention for UAVs 220 associated with UAV services platform 230. For example, UAV services platform 230 may store information identifying past and/or future flight information associated with UAV 220 (e.g., flight paths, flight floors or ceilings, hours of operation, typical maneuvers, maximum or minimum speeds, locations at which UAV 220 refuels or recharges, etc.). UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information, speed information, maximum acceleration, etc.). Based on the information that identifies the current behavior, UAV services platform 230 may determine whether UAV 220 is performing an anomalous behavior. For example, when UAV 220 is controlled by a malicious party, behavior of UAV 220 may deviate from expected behavior based on the past and/or future flight information. UAV services platform 230 may compare the current behavior to the past and/or future flight information to identify anomalous behavior (e.g., based on a machine learning algorithm, a predictive algorithm, etc.)."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Goel to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are configured to allow for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Goel are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Goel, as incorporating the predictive machine learning algorithm of Goel allows for detection of anomalous behavior and as a result, notifying a party associated with the aircraft, deactivating the aircraft, notifying law enforcement, or rerouting the aircraft, thereby improving safety, as recognized by Goel ([0075]).
Regarding claim 23, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. However, neither Pinsonnault nor Boggio outright teach allowing for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms. Goel teaches UAV behavior analysis, comprising:
allowing for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms.
Goel teaches ([0075]): "In some implementations, UAV services platform 230 may provide anomaly detection and fraud prevention for UAVs 220 associated with UAV services platform 230. For example, UAV services platform 230 may store information identifying past and/or future flight information associated with UAV 220 (e.g., flight paths, flight floors or ceilings, hours of operation, typical maneuvers, maximum or minimum speeds, locations at which UAV 220 refuels or recharges, etc.). UAV services platform 230 may obtain information that identifies current behavior of UAV 220 (e.g., GPS information, speed information, maximum acceleration, etc.). Based on the information that identifies the current behavior, UAV services platform 230 may determine whether UAV 220 is performing an anomalous behavior. For example, when UAV 220 is controlled by a malicious party, behavior of UAV 220 may deviate from expected behavior based on the past and/or future flight information. UAV services platform 230 may compare the current behavior to the past and/or future flight information to identify anomalous behavior (e.g., based on a machine learning algorithm, a predictive algorithm, etc.)."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Goel to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, allowing for predictive analytics based on machine learning algorithms.. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Goel are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Goel, as incorporating the predictive machine learning algorithm of Goel allows for detection of anomalous behavior and as a result, notifying a party associated with the aircraft, deactivating the aircraft, notifying law enforcement, or rerouting the aircraft, thereby improving safety, as recognized by Goel ([0075]).
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Brozat (US 2010/0063716 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Pinsonnault further teaches:
and assessing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Brozat teaches a method and device for the control of air traffic management at an airport, comprising:
the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times,
Brozat teaches ([0098]): "ATAMAN optimizes the air-to-air process in its entirety, with the sum of all flight visits being considered in a defined time interval at the airport. As can be seen from FIG. 4, a flight visit is subdivided into five partial processes: approach, taxi inbound, parking, taxi outbound, and departure. Process lags may appear in each partial process and, according to the invention, are specifically calculated and/or forecast." Brozat further teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat even further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay." Brozat still further teaches ([0212]): "The departure process lag PDTaxi out is the difference from the outbound taxi time and the estimated outbound taxi time." Brozat yet further teaches ([0099]): "The taxi module of ATAMAN calculates from the estimated time of landing ETA the estimated on-blocks time EONB (reaching the parking position), taking into consideration the traffic load in the taxiing area."
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft,
Brozat teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Brozat to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Brozat are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Brozat, as calculating delay times, ground times, and block times allows for optimization of the air-to-air process in its entirety, as recognized by Brozat ([0098]-[0099] and [0210]-[0211]).
Regarding claim 24, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Pinsonnault further teaches:
and assessing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that automatically determining, by the one or more control units, the aircraft utilization comprises: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Brozat teaches a method and device for the control of air traffic management at an airport, comprising:
said automatically determining, by the one or more control units, the aircraft utilization comprises: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times,
Brozat teaches ([0098]): "ATAMAN optimizes the air-to-air process in its entirety, with the sum of all flight visits being considered in a defined time interval at the airport. As can be seen from FIG. 4, a flight visit is subdivided into five partial processes: approach, taxi inbound, parking, taxi outbound, and departure. Process lags may appear in each partial process and, according to the invention, are specifically calculated and/or forecast." Brozat further teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat even further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay." Brozat still further teaches ([0212]): "The departure process lag PDTaxi out is the difference from the outbound taxi time and the estimated outbound taxi time." Brozat yet further teaches ([0099]): "The taxi module of ATAMAN calculates from the estimated time of landing ETA the estimated on-blocks time EONB (reaching the parking position), taking into consideration the traffic load in the taxiing area."
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft,
Brozat teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Brozat to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that automatically determining, by the one or more control units, the aircraft utilization comprises: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Brozat are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Brozat, as calculating delay times, ground times, and block times allows for optimization of the air-to-air process in its entirety, as recognized by Brozat ([0098]-[0099] and [0210]-[0211]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio in view of Brozat.
Regarding claim 25, Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 17. Pinsonnault further teaches:
and assessing a productivity metric for each of the plurality of aircraft.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Brozat teaches a method and device for the control of air traffic management at an airport, comprising:
the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times,
Brozat teaches ([0098]): "ATAMAN optimizes the air-to-air process in its entirety, with the sum of all flight visits being considered in a defined time interval at the airport. As can be seen from FIG. 4, a flight visit is subdivided into five partial processes: approach, taxi inbound, parking, taxi outbound, and departure. Process lags may appear in each partial process and, according to the invention, are specifically calculated and/or forecast." Brozat further teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat even further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay." Brozat still further teaches ([0212]): "The departure process lag PDTaxi out is the difference from the outbound taxi time and the estimated outbound taxi time." Brozat yet further teaches ([0099]): "The taxi module of ATAMAN calculates from the estimated time of landing ETA the estimated on-blocks time EONB (reaching the parking position), taking into consideration the traffic load in the taxiing area."
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft,
Brozat teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Hughes, and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Brozat to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, that the one or more control units are configured to automatically determine the aircraft utilization by: calculating, for each flight of the plurality of aircraft, delay time of departure, delay time of arrival, ground time, and block times, and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft. Pinsonnault, Hughes, Boggio, and Brozat are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Brozat, as calculating delay times, ground times, and block times allows for optimization of the air-to-air process in its entirety, as recognized by Brozat ([0098]-[0099] and [0210]-[0211]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinsonnault and Boggio in view of Brozat, and in further view of Woicekowski et al. (US 2016/0335584 A1), hereinafter Woicekowski, and in even further view of Clarke et al. (US 2003/0167109 A1), hereinafter Clarke.
Regarding claim 26, Pinsonnault and Boggio teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 9. Pinsonnault further teaches:
computing an aircraft productivity complete metric;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics.
assessing the aircraft productivity complete metric to determine various levels of aircraft productivity;
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of aircraft 10 and also a schematic representation of ground facility 24. Onboard apparatus 20 (shown in FIG. 1) of aircraft 10 may comprise one or more health monitoring units 26 (referred hereinafter as “HMU 26”) and one or more communication terminals 28 (referred hereinafter as “terminal 28”) for receiving messages (i.e., signals) and for transmitting messages (i.e., signals) from aircraft 10... HMU 26 may handle the monitoring, recording and offloading of data related to aircraft 10. Memory 32 of HMU 26 may also contain actual utilization data 36 associated with aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may comprise one or more take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, one or more landing weights, and/or any other utilization data that may be useful in characterizing the utilization of aircraft 10. Actual utilization data 36 may be transmitted substantially in real time while aircraft 10 is in operation... Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." The Examiner has interpreted information such as take-off weights, duration of operation, one or more flight durations, one or more flight distances, and one or more landing weights as productivity metrics; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this information allows for the determination of different levels of aircraft productivity (e.g., different flight durations/distances/weights).
using the various levels of aircraft productivity to determine maintenance services and scheduling.
Pinsonnault teaches ([0191]): "Ground facility 24 may receive actual utilization data 36 from one or from a plurality of aircraft 10 so that apparatus 38 may carry-out one or more related steps or methods immediately upon receipt of such actual utilization data 36 or at a later time." ([0204]): "FIG. 3 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to predetermined structural maintenance programs 58, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to predetermined maintenance programs 58 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined maintenance programs 58 where each description may be associated with a unique maintenance program ID. The maintenance program description may comprise information about maintenance-related tasks and associated intervals. For example, each predetermined maintenance program may comprise a recommended inspection schedule, a recommended part replacement schedule, and/or any other maintenance-related activity associated with one or more structural elements 21. Each maintenance program 58 may have an aircraft utilization category 59 associated thereto so that, for example, a less severe utilization of aircraft 10 may require a less severe maintenance program 58." Pinsonnault further teaches ([0208]): "FIG. 4 is a table illustrating a structure of data relating to utilization categories 59, which may be stored in memory 48 of apparatus 38. Data relating to utilization categories 59 may comprise a description of one or more predetermined utilization categories 59 where each description may be associated with a unique utilization category ID. Each utilization category 59 may have one or more utilization criteria 54 associated therewith... Utilization criteria 54 may be used to determine which utilization category 59 may be assigned to aircraft 10 based on actual utilization data 36 of aircraft 10."
However, Pinsonnault does not outright calculating, for each flight of each of the plurality of aircraft, one or more departure delays, one or more arrival delays, ground time, and block times; and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include global delay departure time, and global delay arrival time. Brozat teaches a method and device for the control of air traffic management at an airport, comprising:
said automatically determining the aircraft utilization comprises: calculating, for each flight of each of the plurality of aircraft, one or more departure delays, one or more arrival delays, ground time, and block times;
Brozat teaches ([0098]): "ATAMAN optimizes the air-to-air process in its entirety, with the sum of all flight visits being considered in a defined time interval at the airport. As can be seen from FIG. 4, a flight visit is subdivided into five partial processes: approach, taxi inbound, parking, taxi outbound, and departure. Process lags may appear in each partial process and, according to the invention, are specifically calculated and/or forecast." Brozat further teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat even further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay." Brozat still further teaches ([0212]): "The departure process lag PDTaxi out is the difference from the outbound taxi time and the estimated outbound taxi time." Brozat yet further teaches ([0099]): "The taxi module of ATAMAN calculates from the estimated time of landing ETA the estimated on-blocks time EONB (reaching the parking position), taking into consideration the traffic load in the taxiing area." Brozat is modified such that the above-recited features are applied to each of the aircraft 10 of Pinsonnault.
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include global delay departure time, global delay arrival time…
Brozat teaches ([0211]): "The actual departure delay Dofb is calculated from the actual off-blocks time OFB and the time STD (scheduled time of departure) in minutes. The sum of Dofb over all approaching flights is the cumulative departure delay." Brozat further teaches ([0210]): "The actual arrival delay Donb is calculated from the actual time of arrival on the parking position ONB and the scheduled time of arrival STA in minutes. The sum of Donb over all arrivals is the cumulative arrival delay."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault and Boggio to incorporate the teachings of Brozat to provide calculating, for each flight of each of the plurality of aircraft, one or more departure delays, one or more arrival delays, ground time, and block times; and calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include global delay departure time, and global delay arrival time. Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Brozat are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft fleet monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Brozat, as calculating delay times, ground times, and block times allows for optimization of the air-to-air process in its entirety, as recognized by Brozat ([0098]-[0099] and [0210]-[0211]).
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach calculating flight time global. Woicekowski teaches calculation of total scheduled flight time, comprising:
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include… flight time global…
Woicekowski teaches ([0106]): "As depicted, a first leg 602 may include a scheduled departure from airport ORD (Chicago O'Hare International Airport) at 9:00 AM and a scheduled arrival at airport DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport) at 11:25 AM. The first leg 602 may be associated with a scheduled flight time 616 of 2:25 hours and a scheduled connection time 618 of 0:45 hours. A second leg 604 may include a scheduled departure from airport DFW at 12:10 PM and a scheduled arrival at airport DEN (Denver International Airport) at 2:10 PM. The second leg 604 may be associated with a scheduled flight time 616 of 2:00 hours and a scheduled connection time 618 of 1:00 hours." Woicekowski further teaches ([0107]): "A third leg 606 may include a scheduled departure from airport DEN at 3:10 PM and a scheduled arrival at airport MCI (Kansas City International Airport) at 4:50 PM. The third leg 606 may be associated with a scheduled flight time 616 of 1:40 hours and a scheduled connection time 618 of 0:55 hours. A fourth leg 608 may include a scheduled departure from airport MCI at 5:45 PM and a scheduled arrival at airport ORD at 7:20 PM. The fourth leg 608 may be associated with a scheduled flight time 616 of 1:35 hours. As the fourth leg 608 is the final leg of the pairing 600, there is no connection time associated with the fourth leg 608. Thus, the crew pairing 600 may have a total scheduled flight time of 7:40 hours." Woicekowski is modified such that the above-recited features are applied to each of the aircraft 10 of Pinsonnault.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Boggio, and Brozat to incorporate the teachings of Woicekowski to provide calculating flight time global. Pinsonnault, Boggio, Brozat, and Woicekowski are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft flight monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Woicekowski, as doing so advantageously allows for the determination of a total flight time based on the individual flight times of legs of a trip, as recognized by Woicekowski (see at least [0106]-[0107]).
However, Pinsonnault does not outright teach calculating block time global. Clarke teaches methods and systems for routing mobile vehicles, comprising:
calculating global values for all of the plurality of aircraft, wherein the global values include… block time global;
Clarke teaches ([0038]): "Equation CSP6 ensures that the flying time (sum of block times along a routing) assigned to a given aircraft does not exceed the remaining time between scheduled maintenance checks." Clarke is modified such that the above-recited features are applied to each of the aircraft 10 of Pinsonnault.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pinsonnault, Boggio, Brozat, and Woicekowski to incorporate the teachings of Clarke to provide calculating block time global. Pinsonnault, Boggio, Brozat, Woicekowski, and Clarke are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft flight monitoring. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Clarke, as doing so advantageously allows for ensuring that the sum of block times along a routing assigned to a given aircraft does not exceed the remaining time between scheduled maintenance checks, as recognized by Clarke ([0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Avery et al. (US 2007/0112608 A1) teaches integrated maintenance services for fleet aircraft, wherein aircraft utilization is determined and used to assess prices charged for maintenance services (see at least [0026]). Carpenter et al. (US 2019/0028904 A1) teaches a method and system for implementing a self-organizing drone network, including the deployment of drones to perform scheduled maintenance (see at least [0092]). Meier (US 9,186,793 B1) teaches an apparatus and methods for controlling attention of a robot, including assigning a robot a task of locating candidate regions of an aircraft that may require repair and/or further inspection as a part of regular aircraft maintenance over time; however, Meier does not fully teach or suggest that the robot receives a maintenance schedule for a plurality of aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights