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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that Deker (US 2009/0048724) does not disclose or suggest “a stabilization test including the calculation of a distance required for landing that is a minimum length required for a sufficient reduction in the total energy of the aircraft’s movement from its current position to the landing area, and the comparison of the required landing distance to the length of the reference trajectory”. This argument is not persuasive as Deker teaches, in Paragraphs [0015]-[0018] a system that calculates a minimum impact point for an aircraft such that the aircraft will be able to land without risk, risks which include not being able to land, brake, and disengage a runway. This is a system that evaluates the minimum length required for an aircraft to land, brake, and disengage the runway (i.e. to a reduction in the total energy of the aircraft to one at which the aircraft can disengage the runway) based on the current situation of the aircraft including speed and environmental factors. Such a system therefore teaches at least the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations and therefore the rejections previously rendered under 35 U.S.C. 103 are being maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 11, 14-21, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer (US 2016/0085239) in view of Decker (US 2017/0323573) in view of Deker (US 2009/0043434).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker in view of Ben-Shachar (US 2015/0153740).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 14-21, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer (US 2016/0085239) in view of Decker (US 2017/0323573) in view of Deker (US 2009/0043434).
As per Claim 1:
Boyer discloses the following limitations:
“A method of assisting with the approach of an aircraft for landing on a landing zone where the aircraft is to touch down, the method being implemented by a flight management system comprising a processor and a memory, the method comprising: performing an initial calculation step of calculating a reference path linking a current position of the aircraft to the landing zone, the reference path including a lateral path and a vertical profile, the vertical profile comprising an altitude profile, a speed profile, configuration setup points, each of the configuration setup points corresponding to an operation of aircraft high-lift devices, a deployment point for landing gear of the aircraft, and, if appropriate, one or a plurality of segments with airbrakes, and the application of a stabilization test to the reference path to determine whether the reference path can be used for the landing;”
Boyer Figure 8a discloses a series of points along a lateral path with a vertical profile in which appropriate aerodynamic configurations are to be instituted (See Paragraph [0181]).
“performing modification steps implemented successively according to a sequence of modifications, each said modification step comprising calculating a modification of the reference path according to predefined modification rules specific to each said modification step, and applying the stabilization test to the modified reference path”
Boyer Paragraph [0189] discloses modifying commanded configurations to respond to unforeseen situations in the initial calculation.
“performing a transmitting step comprising transmitting the reference path to at least an autopilot, the transmitting step being implemented once the reference path calculated in the initial calculation step or the reference path modified after one or a plurality of the modification steps passes the stabilization test; and enabling the autopilot to execute descent and landing approach of the aircraft”
Boyer Paragraphs [0175]-[0177] discloses displaying a reference path to pilots.
Boyer does not disclose the following limitations that Decker does disclose:
“each said modification step comprises sequentially: - modifying, by angular adjustment, the lateral path comprising the modification of the lateral path, calculating a vertical profile according to the modified lateral path; then – performing a sequence of adjustments of the vertical profile, comprising at least one step of modification by adjustment of the vertical profile each said step of modification by adjustment of the vertical profile comprising: a modification of the vertical profile and an adaptation, if appropriate, of the lateral path which would take into account the modification of the vertical profile.”
Decker Paragraph [0077] "In one embodiment of the invention, the horizontal trajectory is updated continuously, and the adaptation of the vertical profile is performed on this horizontal trajectory." Paragraph [0079] "It may also be necessary to adapt the vertical profile subsequent to a modification of the horizontal trajectory of an aircraft, the vertical profile then no longer being in agreement with the modified horizontal trajectory of the aircraft. A modification of the horizontal trajectory of the aircraft may for example be obtained by applying the method described in patent application FR1403023."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Boyer discloses with modification of the vertical profile disclosed by Decker as both Boyer (See Paragraph [0001]) and Decker (See Paragraph [0063]) relate to calculation and prediction of aircraft flight paths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring continuity of an approach path.
Boyer in view of Decker does not disclose the following limitations that Deker does disclose:
“wherein the stabilization test comprises calculating a distance required for landing as a minimum length required for a sufficient reduction in a total energy of the aircraft move from the current position of the aircraft to the landing zone for landing, and comparing the distance required with the length of the reference path, and if the length of the reference path is greater than the distance required for landing, validating the reference path.
Deker Paragraphs [0015]- [0016] discloses identifying a minimum impact required to ensure that enough landing zone is present based on the current speed of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Boyer in view of Decker with the landing path requirement disclosed by Deker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by ensuring that the aircraft will have sufficient room to land.
With regards to Claim 2, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising iteratively repeating at least one of the modification steps before going to a next said modification step, so as to modify the path by applying several times, the predefined modification rules specific to said modification step repeated several times, the repetition being stopped according to a stop criterion specific to the modification step repeated several times.”
Boyer Paragraph [0183] "step 430 therefore identifies a capacity to apply a flight command within flight segment 803a in order to switch to configuration 3. It is possible, iteratively, to determine the optimum moment for switching to configuration 3 from point B. In this particular instance, this moment corresponds to the passing through VFE connected with configuration 3, at the point 816a."
With regards to Claim 3, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising at least one step of modifying the lateral path by angular adjustment, comprising modifying the lateral path, and calculating a new vertical profile according to the modified lateral path”
Boyer Paragraph [0120] "If all the altitude constraints are validated, step 450 modifies the flight segment by modifying the altitude of one of the initial or final points of the segment and the segment is validated against the performance criteria in question. If not, the performance criteria are not validated and it is not possible to adjust the flight segment either by a command to modify the state vector of the aircraft or by modifying one of the initial and final points of the flight segment. It then becomes necessary to redefine the performance criteria and/or to alert the crew to the fact that the flight segment cannot be modified in order to meet these performance criteria."
With regards to Claim 4, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising at least one step of modification by adjusting the vertical profile, each step of modification by adjusting the vertical profile comprising modifying the vertical profile and adapting, if appropriate, the lateral path, made so as to take into account, said modifying of the vertical profile”
Boyer Paragraph [0068] "However, it is possible, by modifying the moments at which configurations are applied, to modify the descent speed profile, the speed for a given configuration being limited to a minimum speed connected to the lift of the aircraft, in order to avoid stalling."
With regards to Claim 5, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising at least one step of said modification by adjusting the vertical profile, wherein the modification is performed by modifying the speed profile”
Boyer Paragraph [0068] "However, it is possible, by modifying the moments at which configurations are applied, to modify the descent speed profile, the speed for a given configuration being limited to a minimum speed connected to the lift of the aircraft, in order to avoid stalling."
With regards to Claim 6, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the modification by adjusting the vertical profile is performed by modifying the configuration setup positions of the high-lift devices.”
Boyer Paragraph [0060] "it is possible, by adjusting the moments at which aerodynamic configuration is applied, namely the moments at which the aircraft modifies the position of its slats, flaps, landing gears and air brakes, to construct a speed profile that allows it to decelerate down to a final approach speed over the horizontal distance remaining to be covered."
With regards to Claim 7, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising at least one step of modification by adjusting the vertical profile performed by adding segments with airbrakes”
Boyer Paragraph [0108] "the extension of the air brakes."
With regards to Claim 8, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“comprising at least one step of modification by adjusting the vertical profile performed by modifying the deployment position of the landing gear”
Boyer Paragraph [0107] "the deployment of the landing gear;"
With regards to Claim 11, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Boyer further discloses the following limitations:
wherein said sequence of steps of modification by adjusting the vertical profile comprises: - a step of modification by adjustment of the vertical profile, wherein the modification is performed by modifying the speed profile; a step of modification by adjustment of the vertical profile, wherein the modification is made by modifying the configuration setup positions of the high- lift devices: - a modification step by adjusting the vertical profile, wherein the modification is made by adding segments with airbrakes; and/or - a modification step by adjusting the vertical profile, wherein the modification is made by modifying the deployment point of the landing gear”
Boyer Paragraphs [0110]-[0114] disclose adjusting a speed profile to modify state variables in a profile.
With regards to Claim 14, Boyer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the stabilization test comprises verifying one or a plurality of the following validation conditions, each of the validation conditions being applied to the point of the reference path at which the aircraft must be at a stabilization altitude a predicted speed being less than an approach speed recommended by an aircraft flight manual, plus a predefined validation speed margin; and/or - a predicted vertical difference being less than a predefined validation vertical difference; and/or - a predicted vertical speed being consistent with a reference slope plus a predefined validation vertical speed margin; and/or - a landing gear being predicted as being deployed; and/or - a landing configuration being predicted as being spread; and/or - a thrust being not at idle engine speed at the stabilization altitude increased by a validation altitude margin.”
Boyer Paragraph [0112] discloses a landing configuration which fulfils one of the alternative limitations of this claim.
With regards to Claim 15, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“the approach assistance method being implemented periodically and comprising applying an invalidation test to a last validated and transmitted reference path, and resuming the calculation of a reference path if the last transmitted reference path is invalidated by the invalidation.”
Boyer Paragraph [0103] "If the ground gradient is validated, the flight segment and predicted execution of the flight controls are not changed. If not, the following steps allow the predicted path to be modified so as to validate the performance criteria."
With regards to Claim 16, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein each said validation condition of the stabilization test is associated with an invalidation condition applying to the same parameter as the validation condition, the validation condition and the invalidation condition being intended for applying a hysteresis to said parameter.”
Boyer Paragraph [0103] "If the ground gradient is validated, the flight segment and predicted execution of the flight controls are not changed. If not, the following steps allow the predicted path to be modified so as to validate the performance criteria." Hysteresis is here demonstrated by the modification occurring in response to a ground gradient not being validated and therefore the historical condition of the system is taken into account.
With regards to Claim 17, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the calculation of a reference path is resumed at the initial calculation step or is resumed starting from the last transmitted reference path and by resuming at the modification step following the step which determined the last transmitted reference path.”
Boyer Paragraph [0095] discloses "backwards" prediction wherein calculation is re-done at an initial calculation step.
With regards to Claim 18, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15 and further teaches the following limitation:
“wherein the stabilization test comprises the calculation of a distance required for landing, and the comparison of the distance required with the length of the reference path, the reference path being validated if the length thereof is greater than the required distance and wherein the invalidation test comprises comparing the difference between a distance required for landing and the length of the reference path, with a predefined difference threshold, the reference path being invalidated if the difference is greater than the difference threshold.”
Deker Paragraphs [0015]- [0018] discloses identifying a minimum impact required to ensure that enough landing zone is present based on the current speed of the aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker with the landing path requirement disclosed by Deker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by ensuring that the aircraft will have sufficient room to land.
With regards to Claim 19, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the approach assistance method is implemented periodically and comprises applying an invalidation test to the last validated and transmitted reference path, and resuming the calculation of a reference path if the last transmitted reference path is invalidated by the invalidation, the invalidation test comprising one or a plurality of the following invalidation conditions, each invalidation condition being applied to the point of the reference path at which the aircraft has to be at the stabilization altitude: the predicted speed being greater than the approach speed plus a predefined invalidation speed margin strictly greater than the validation speed margin; the predicted vertical difference being greater than a predefined vertical invalidation difference strictly greater than the vertical validation difference; the predicted vertical speed being greater than the vertical speed corresponding to the reference slope plus a vertical invalidation speed margin strictly greater than the vertical validation speed margin; the landing gear being not predicted as being deployed; the landing configuration being not predicted as being spread; the thrust being not idling at the stabilization altitude plus an invalidation altitude margin strictly less than the validation altitude margin.”
Boyer Paragraph [0112] discloses verifying landing configuration being spread.
With regards to Claim 20, Boyer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and also utilizes “an electronic system” as disclosed in this claim. See Paragraph [0025].
With regards to Claim 21, Boyer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and also discloses “a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program” that implements the steps of Claim 1. See Paragraph [0025].
With regards to Claim 22, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising enabling the autopilot to execute the landing of the aircraft.”
Boyer Paragraph [0044] discloses an automatic pilot.
With regards to Claim 23, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“transmitting the reference path to the human pilot(s) by showing the reference path on a display device; and transmitting the reference path to a traffic management system”
Boye Paragraphs [0175]-[0177] discloses displaying a reference path to pilots.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker in view of Ben-Shachar (US 2015/0153740).
With regards to Claim 9, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Ben-Shachar does disclose:
“comprising a step of modification of the lateral path by a trombone-shape adjustment.”
Ben-Shachar Paragraph [0007] "Thus, a trombone landing approach is highly advantageous for air traffic controllers at airports when spacing between aircrafts is required, as this landing approach provides flexibility by adjustment of the downwind leg length."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker with the trombone-shaped modification disclosed by Ben-Shachar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a known method of adjustment.
With regards to Claim 12, Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not teach the following limitations suggested by Ben-Shachar:
“comprising a step of modification by trombone-shape adjustment of the lateral path (E4), implemented after the step(s) of modification by adjusting the vertical profile”
Ben-Shachar Paragraph [0007] "Thus, a trombone landing approach is highly advantageous for air traffic controllers at airports when spacing between aircrafts is required, as this landing approach provides flexibility by adjustment of the downwind leg length."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Boyer in view of Decker in view of Deker with the trombone-shaped modification disclosed by Ben-Shachar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by providing a known method of adjustment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights