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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 18th, 2025. Claims 1-4, and 6-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendment filed on September 18th, 2025, Examiner maintains the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Paul fails to disclose an execution plan wherein the execution plan is information including at least one of the starting point, the ending point, and the one or more checkpoints are associated with a prescribed action that can be executed by the flying vehicle, the prescribed action including at least one of an image capture, a measurement, or an equipment inspection. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Paul does disclose the required limitations. Specifically at Fig. 15A-C several steps of the vehicles plan are depicted, specifically Examiner asserts that under the definition provided by the Applicant one example of a checkpoint would be flight stage 43 wherein the prescribed action of following a landing checklist is performed. As part of the landing checklist, it is required for the vehicle to capture an image; [0095]; “An example landing validation system using cameras is described herein. The aircraft 100 may include one or more cameras that acquire images of the runway during approach. Although cameras may be used for landing validation, additional/alternative techniques may be used to validate landing. For example, the validation system 222, 514 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location, such as a GPS receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems,”. This falls under applicants provided definition of a prescribed action at a checkpoint which constitutes an execution plan. Furthermore, the position of stage 43 of checking the landing checklist is done in the air, Examiner argues the term position is broad and therefore, being in air can constitute a position for the vehicle where the prescribed action takes place, specifically the positioning being after the vehicle enters the airport (stage 39) and before the vehicle touches down (stage 45). Therefore, examiner maintains that this limitation is taught by the prior art of record.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that Bacic fails to cure the deficiencies as Paul such as failing to disclose the first condition including a relationship between a remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle and a sum of an amount of consumable power required for the prescribed action in accordance with the execution plan of the post-addition flight plan being a prescribed relationship. Examiner respectfully disagrees the prediction of the amount of energy required for a vehicle to complete a specific flight path that would include prescribed actions, is equal to a calculation for the amount of power required for the path, since the amount of power requires is at least as much as is consumed by the vehicle (see at least Bacic [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure that the prescribed relationship of the consumed energy is less than the allotted energy the vehicle currently has available). The determination of whether the amount of energy needed for the flight plan is under the available energy of the vehicle constitutes Applicant’s prescribed relationship Therefore, Examiner maintains that this limitation is taught by the previous prior art of record.
All of the remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are persuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 8-17, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220189316 (hereinafter, “Paul”) in view of US-20220291683 (hereinafter, “Bacic”).
Regarding claim 1 Paul discloses a flight management apparatus (see at least [Abstract]; “an aircraft flight control system controls the aircraft in route according to the flight plan”) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (see at least [0202]; “the electronic hardware and software components may include, but are not limited to, one or more processing units, one or more memory components, one or more input/output (I/O) components, and interconnect components”); and
at least one processor configured to execute instructions (see at least [0202]; “the electronic hardware and software components may include, but are not limited to, one or more processing units, one or more memory components, one or more input/output (I/O) components, and interconnect components”) to:
store flight plan information indicating a flight plan for a flying vehicle, including a scheduled flight route see at least [0004]; “in one example, the present disclosure is directed to an aircraft comprising one or more memory components configured to store a flight plan and contingency data including a plurality of contingency landing sites,” and [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and/or GCS 102 may generate and modify flight plans for execution by the aircraft while in flight between airports,” the flight plan which indicates a route of the aircraft corresponds to Applicant’s scheduled flight route) and an execution plan for the flying vehicle (see at least figs. 15A-15C; which include prescribed actions for the vehicle to perform, such as image capturing for landing validation), wherein the scheduled flight route includes a starting point (see at least Fig. 15A; flight stage 11 – start the engine(s), an ending point (see at least Fig. 15C; flight stage 50 – follows shutdown checklist) and one or more checkpoints (see at least Fig. 15B flight stage 43 – follows landing checklist, flight stage 43 is considered a checkpoint and [0095]; “An example landing validation system using cameras is described herein. The aircraft 100 may include one or more cameras that acquire images of the runway during approach. Although cameras may be used for landing validation, additional/alternative techniques may be used to validate landing. For example, the validation system 222, 514 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location, such as a GPS receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems.”), and the execution plan is information indicating that at least one of the starting point, the ending point, and the one or more checkpoints are associated with a prescribed action that can be executed by the flying vehicle, the prescribed action including at least one of an image capture, a measurement, or an equipment inspection (see at least Fig. 15B flight stage 43 – follows landing checklist, flight stage 43 is considered a checkpoint and [0095]; “An example landing validation system using cameras is described herein. The aircraft 100 may include one or more cameras that acquire images of the runway during approach. Although cameras may be used for landing validation, additional/alternative techniques may be used to validate landing. For example, the validation system 222, 514 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location, such as a GPS receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems,” at the checkpoint landing validation occurs, which includes the capturing of an image);
acquire position information indicating a position of the flying vehicle from the flying vehicle before the flying vehicle flies based on the flight plan (see at least [0042]; “the aircraft may include a navigation system 204 that generates navigation data. The navigation data may indicate the location, altitude, velocity, heading, and attitude of the aircraft 100. The navigation system 204 may include a Global navigation satellite System (GNSS) receiver that determines the latitude and longitude of the aircraft 100,” and [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and the GCS may communicate at any time prior to flight, during flight, and after flight,” and [0070]; “the guidance module 228 may receive the flight plan data structure and additional information regarding the state of the aircraft 100, such as a current location,” the navigation system can communicate the navigation data, such as location, to the GCS prior to flight);
set an additional flight plan including an additional flight route from the position indicated by the acquired position information to a prescribed position on the scheduled flight route included in the flight plan (see at least [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and/or GCS 102 may generate and modify taxi plans for the airports 108. For example, the GCS 102 may generate a taxi plan and upload the taxi plan to the aircraft 100 for execution,” and [0077]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may find a path through different airport topologies based on ATC instructions and/or path planning operations (e.g., a shortest path for non-towered airports)…Example input data used to generate a taxi plan may include, but is not limited to, a starting location of the aircraft, a starting orientation/heading for the aircraft, an airport map, ATC instructions, a destination location for the aircraft, and a destination orientation/heading for the aircraft,” the taxiing system, corresponding to the setting unit, provides a taxi route, corresponding to the additional flight plan, from the airplane location, such as a hangar, to a desired takeoff location in association with the flight path), in response to a post-addition flight plan, which is a flight plan obtained by adding the additional flight plan to the flight plan, satisfying a first condition (see at least [0062]; “the aircraft may include a flight management system (FMS) 208 that may receive and/or generate one or more flight plan data structures (i.e., flight plan data) that the aircraft 100 may use for navigation. A flight plan data structure may include a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft 100 over time…the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise descent, approach, and missed approach,” and [0066]; “the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 may include a path validator module 226. The path validator module 226 may determine whether the flight 224 by the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 intrudes on any inappropriate airspace, intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any other structures (e.g., buildings, powerlines, etc.),” and [[0062]; “the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and missed approach,” the flight plan data structure include multiple phases of flight, and correlates to Applicant’s post-addition flight plan, this data structure is run through a validator to determine the validity of the plan, also see Fig. 7A the taxi plan and flight plan is only received 714 only after the plans have been verified)…
…transmit additional flight plan information indicating the additional flight plan to the flying vehicle (see at least [0068]; “the aircraft 100 includes a flight control system 210 that generates actuator commands based on a taxi plan or a flight plan”); and
control the flying vehicle to fly based on the transmitted additional flight plan information (see at least [0068]; “the aircraft 100 includes a flight control system 210 that generates actuator commands based on a taxi plan or a flight plan…the flight control system 210 may generate control commands that control the aircraft 100”).
Paul does not disclose the first condition including a relationship between a remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle and a sum of an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle performs the prescribed action at the one or more positions in accordance with the execution plan of the post-addition flight plan and an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle flies based on the post-addition flight plan being a prescribed relationship.
Bacic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electric or hybrid electric aircraft the first condition including a relationship between a remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle and a sum of an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle performs the prescribed action at the one or more positions in accordance with the execution plan and an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle flies based on the post-addition flight plan being a prescribed relationship (see at least [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure that the prescribed relationship of the consumed energy is less than the allotted energy the vehicle currently has available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul with the energy usage model of Bacic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which the available stored energy is used and managed, so that aircraft range and performance can be improved (see at least Bacic; [0004]).
Regarding claim 2 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan including the additional flight route from the acquired position indicated by the position information to a position of the starting point of the scheduled flight route included in the flight plan (see at least [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and/or GCS 102 may generate and modify taxi plans for the airports 108. For example, the GCS 102 may generate a taxi plan and upload the taxi plan to the aircraft 100 for execution,” and [0077]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may find a path through different airport topologies based on ATC instructions and/or path planning operations (e.g., a shortest path for non-towered airports)…Example input data used to generate a taxi plan may include, but is not limited to, a starting location of the aircraft, a starting orientation/heading for the aircraft, an airport map, ATC instructions, a destination location for the aircraft, and a destination orientation/heading for the aircraft,” the taxiing system, corresponding to the setting unit, provides a taxi route, corresponding to the additional flight plan, from the airplane location, such as a hangar, to a desired takeoff location which is associated with the aircraft’s flight path).
Regarding claim 3 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan by receiving approval for the additional flight plan from a user of the flying vehicle (see at least [0080]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may generate the taxi plan based on ATC instructions and/or using other path planning algorithms, such as a shortest path algorithm (e.g., through airport map data). The remote operator may review the taxi plan (e.g., on a taxi plan GUI),” the user is able to review the taxi plan, corresponding to the additional flight plan, and therefore approve it before its output to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 4 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, receive the additional flight route from a user of the flying vehicle and set the additional flight plan including the received additional flight route (see at least [0080]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may generate the taxi plan based on ATC instructions and/or using other path planning algorithms, such as a shortest path algorithm (e.g., through airport map data). The remote operator may review the taxi plan (e.g., on a taxi plan GUI),” and [0068]; “the aircraft 100 includes a flight control system 210 that generates actuator commands based on a taxi plan or a flight plan,” once the taxi plan is approved by the user, it is output).
Regarding claim 8 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: set the additional flight plan if the first condition, which includes the flying vehicle being able to perform the prescribed action scheduled to be executed by the execution plan included in the post-addition flight plan, is satisfied (see at least [0066]; “the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 may include a path validator module 226. The path validator module 226 may determine whether the flight 224 by the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 intrudes on any inappropriate airspace, intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any other structures (e.g., buildings, powerlines, etc.),” and [0062]; “the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and missed approach,” the total flight plan includes both during flight, and departure/taxiing of flight, this plan is run through a validator to determine the validity of the plan).
Regarding claim 9 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the flight plan includes time information indicating a time at which the flying vehicle is to fly at the prescribed position on the scheduled flight route (see at least [0062]; “the aircraft may include a flight management system (FMS) 208 that may receive and/or generate one or more flight plan data structures (i.e., flight plan data) that the aircraft 100 may use for navigation. A flight plan data structure may include a sequence of waypoints that each include a target location for the aircraft 100 over time. A waypoint may indicate a three-dimensional location in space, such as a latitude, longitude, and altitude (e.g., in meters). Each of the waypoints in the flight plan data structure may be associated with additional waypoint data such as waypoint time (e.g., a target time of arrival at the waypoint) and/or a waypoint speed (e.g., a target airspeed in knots or kilometers per hour)”); and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the first condition, which includes the flying vehicle being able to fly at the prescribed position at the time at which to fly at the prescribed position indicated by the time information included in the flight plan, is satisfied (see at least [0066]; “the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 may include a path validator module 226. The path validator module 226 may determine whether the flight 224 by the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 intrudes on any inappropriate airspace, intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any other structures (e.g., buildings, powerlines, etc.),” and [[0062]; “the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and missed approach,” the total flight plan includes both during flight, and departure/taxiing of flight, this plan is run through a validator to determine the validity of the plan).
Regarding claim 10 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the first condition, which includes the flying vehicle being able to communicate with the flight management apparatus on the scheduled flight route indicated by the additional flight plan, is satisfied (see at least [0156]; the GCS 102 and aircraft 100 may implement lost communication operations during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing, the aircraft 100 may be configured to stop and re-attempt to re-establish one or more lost communication links”).
Regarding claim 11 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if a prescribed range from the position indicated by the acquired position information satisfies a second condition (see at least [0156]; the GCS 102 and aircraft 100 may implement lost communication operations during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing, the aircraft 100 may be configured to stop and re-attempt to re-establish one or more lost communication links,” the taxiing plan is only set if communication is available between the vehicle and the GCD system, and [0108]; “In scenarios where the aircraft 100 is near the GCS 102, the GCS 102 may communicate with the aircraft 100 using a local line of sight radio,” if the vehicle is within the local line of sight distance, communication is established, and the flight plan is set).
Regarding claim 12 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Paul discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the second condition, indicating that the prescribed range from the position indicated by the acquired position information is an environment in which the flying vehicle can communicate, is satisfied (see at least [0156]; the GCS 102 and aircraft 100 may implement lost communication operations during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing, the aircraft 100 may be configured to stop and re-attempt to re-establish one or more lost communication links,” the taxiing plan is only set if communication is available between the vehicle and the GCD system, and [0108]; “In scenarios where the aircraft 100 is near the GCS 102, the GCS 102 may communicate with the aircraft 100 using a local line of sight radio,” if the vehicle is within the local line of sight distance, communication is established, and the flight plan is set).
Regarding claim 13 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan including the additional flight route, including a route ascending from the position indicated by the acquired position information to a position directly above the position and at a same altitude as the prescribed position, and a horizontal flight route from the ascended position at the same altitude to the prescribed position (see at least [0030]; “although the aircraft 100 is illustrated herein as a fixed wing aircraft, the techniques of the present disclosure may be implemented in other types of aircraft, such as rotorcraft, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (VTOL),” and [0062]; “the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and missed approach,” the takeoff of the vehicle may be amended to a VTOL takeoff from where the vehicle is located, the flight plan may be considered as starting at any altitude above the current vehicle position).
Regarding claim 14 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in outputting, transmit post-addition flight plan information indicating a post- addition flight plan, which is a flight plan obtained by adding the additional flight plan to the flight plan, to the flying vehicle before flying (see at least Fig. 7A and 7B; the taxi and flight plans are output (step 704) prior to taxing (step 734) and takeoff (step 738)).
Regarding claim 15 Paul discloses a flight management method, to be executed by a computer (see at least fig. 1C), the flight management method comprising:
storing, in a storage unit, flight plan information indicating a flight plan for a flying vehicle, the flight plan information including a scheduled flight route (see at least [0004]; “in one example, the present disclosure is directed to an aircraft comprising one or more memory components configured to store a flight plan and contingency data including a plurality of contingency landing sites,” and [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and/or GCS 102 may generate and modify flight plans for execution by the aircraft while in flight between airports,” the flight plan which indicates a route of the aircraft corresponds to Applicant’s scheduled flight route) and an execution plan for the flying vehicle in the flight plan (see at least figs. 15A-15C; which include prescribed actions for the vehicle to perform, such as image capturing for landing validation), wherein the scheduled flight route includes a starting point (see at least Fig. 15A; flight stage 11 – start the engine(s)), an ending point (see at least Fig. 15C; flight stage 50 – follows shutdown checklist) and one or more checkpoints (see at least Fig. 15B flight stage 43 – follows landing checklist, flight stage 43 is considered a checkpoint and [0095]; “An example landing validation system using cameras is described herein. The aircraft 100 may include one or more cameras that acquire images of the runway during approach. Although cameras may be used for landing validation, additional/alternative techniques may be used to validate landing. For example, the validation system 222, 514 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location, such as a GPS receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems.”), and the execution plan is information indicating that one or more positions of the starting point, the ending point, and the one or more checkpoints are associated with a prescribed action that can be executed by the flying vehicle, the prescribed action including at least one of an image capture, a measurement, or an equipment inspection (see at least Fig. 15B flight stage 43 – follows landing checklist, flight stage 43 is considered a checkpoint and [0095]; “An example landing validation system using cameras is described herein. The aircraft 100 may include one or more cameras that acquire images of the runway during approach. Although cameras may be used for landing validation, additional/alternative techniques may be used to validate landing. For example, the validation system 222, 514 may be used along with other sensors and systems to validate a landing location, such as a GPS receiver, an instrument landing system (ILS), and/or other positioning systems,” at the checkpoint landing validation occurs, which includes the capturing of an image);
acquiring position information indicating the position of the flying vehicle from the flying vehicle before the flying vehicle flies based on the flight plan (see at least [0042]; “the aircraft may include a navigation system 204 that generates navigation data. The navigation data may indicate the location, altitude, velocity, heading, and attitude of the aircraft 100. The navigation system 204 may include a Global navigation satellite System (GNSS) receiver that determines the latitude and longitude of the aircraft 100,” and [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and the GCS may communicate at any time prior to flight, during flight, and after flight,” and [0070]; “the guidance module 228 may receive the flight plan data structure and additional information regarding the state of the aircraft 100, such as a current location,” the navigation system can communicate the navigation data, such as location, to the GCS prior to flight);
setting an additional flight plan including an additional flight route from a position indicated by the acquired position information to a prescribed position on the scheduled flight route included in the flight plan (see at least [0025]; “the aircraft 100 and/or GCS 102 may generate and modify taxi plans for the airports 108. For example, the GCS 102 may generate a taxi plan and upload the taxi plan to the aircraft 100 for execution,” and [0077]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may find a path through different airport topologies based on ATC instructions and/or path planning operations (e.g., a shortest path for non-towered airports)…Example input data used to generate a taxi plan may include, but is not limited to, a starting location of the aircraft, a starting orientation/heading for the aircraft, an airport map, ATC instructions, a destination location for the aircraft, and a destination orientation/heading for the aircraft,” the taxiing system, corresponding to the setting unit, provides a taxi route, corresponding to the additional flight plan, from the airplane location, such as a hangar, to a desired takeoff location in association with the flight path), in response to a post-addition flight plan, which is flight plan obtained by adding the additional flight plan to the flight plan, satisfying a first condition (see at least [0062]; “the aircraft may include a flight management system (FMS) 208 that may receive and/or generate one or more flight plan data structures (i.e., flight plan data) that the aircraft 100 may use for navigation. A flight plan data structure may include a sequence of waypoints that each indicate a target location for the aircraft 100 over time…the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise descent, approach, and missed approach,” and [0066]; “the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 may include a path validator module 226. The path validator module 226 may determine whether the flight 224 by the FMS 208 and/or flight planning system 504 intrudes on any inappropriate airspace, intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any terrain (e.g., mountains), and/or intersects with any other structures (e.g., buildings, powerlines, etc.),” and [[0062]; “the flight plan data structure may be generated for different phases of flight, such as departure, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and missed approach,” the flight plan data structure include multiple phases of flight, and correlates to Applicant’s post-addition flight plan, this data structure is run through a validator to determine the validity of the plan, also see Fig. 7A the taxi plan and flight plan is only received 714 only after the plans have been verified)…
…transmitting additional flight plan information indicating the additional flight plan to the flying vehicle (see at least [0068]; “the aircraft 100 includes a flight control system 210 that generates actuator commands based on a taxi plan or a flight plan”); and
controlling the flying vehicle to fly based on the transmitted additional flight plan information (see at least [0068]; “the aircraft 100 includes a flight control system 210 that generates actuator commands based on a taxi plan or a flight plan…the flight control system 210 may generate control commands that control the aircraft 100”).
Paul does not disclose the first condition including a relationship between a remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle and a sum of an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle performs the prescribed action at the one or more positions in accordance with the execution plan of the post-addition flight plan and an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle flies based on the post-addition flight plan being a prescribed relationship.
Bacic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electric or hybrid electric aircraft the first condition including a relationship between a remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle and a sum of an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle performs the prescribed action at the one or more positions in accordance with the execution plan of the post-addition flight plan and an amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle required when the flying vehicle flies based on the post-addition flight plan being a prescribed relationship (see at least [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure that the prescribed relationship of the consumed energy is less than the allotted energy the vehicle currently has available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul with the energy usage model of Bacic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which the available stored energy is used and managed, so that aircraft range and performance can be improved (see at least Bacic; [0004]).
Regarding claim 16 Paul in view of Bacic renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan by receiving approval for the additional flight plan from a user of the flying vehicle (see at least [0080]; “the taxiing system 510, 216 may generate the taxi plan based on ATC instructions and/or using other path planning algorithms, such as a shortest path algorithm (e.g., through airport map data). The remote operator may review the taxi plan (e.g., on a taxi plan GUI),” the user is able to review the taxi plan, corresponding to the additional flight plan, and therefore approve it before its output to the vehicle)…
…in transmitting, transmit the additional flight plan information in a case where the additional flight plan is set (see at least Fig. 7A once the remote operator verifies the flight plans (step 710), the plan is transmitted back to the GCS-UA (step 714)), and transmit error information indicating that the additional flight plan is not set in a case where the additional flight plan is not set (see at least Fig. 9; loss of communication corresponds to error information indicating that the additional flight plan is not set, seeing as the plan cannot be executed/set unless communication is established).
Paul does not disclose receiving approval for the additional flight plan…in response to a relationship between the post-addition flight plan and the remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle satisfying the first condition.
Bacic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving approval for the additional flight plan…in response to a relationship between the post-addition flight plan and the remaining capacity of a battery provided in the flying vehicle satisfying the first condition (see at least [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure it is a safe path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul with the energy usage model of Bacic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which the available stored energy is used and managed, so that aircraft range and performance can be improved (see at least Bacic; [0004]).
Regarding claim 17 Paul discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Paul discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan in response to the first condition, which indicates that a predetermined percentage of the additional flight route is included in a communication-capable area in which the flying vehicle is capable of communicating with the flight management apparatus, being satisfied (see at least [0156]; the GCS 102 and aircraft 100 may implement lost communication operations during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing. For example, in the case of a lost communication scenario during taxiing, the aircraft 100 may be configured to stop and re-attempt to re-establish one or more lost communication links,” the additional route, in this case the taxi plan, is set as long as any portion of the route is capable of establishing a connection, therefore as long as the percentage is above zero, the flight is approved).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul in view of Bacic as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of US-20220396363 (hereinafter, “Roy”).
Regarding claim 6 Paul in view of Bacic all of the limitations of claim 5. Paul does not disclose wherein the prescribed action includes charging,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the first condition, which includes the relationship between the remaining capacity of the battery and the sum of the amount of consumable power required when the flying vehicle performs the prescribed action executed from the starting point to a position for the charging of the scheduled flight route plan among a plurality of prescribed actions included in the post-addition flight plan and the amount of consumable power of the flying vehicle being the prescribed relationship, is satisfied.
Bacic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electric or hybrid electric aircraft,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the first condition, which includes the relationship between the remaining capacity of the battery and the sum of the amount of consumable power required for the prescribed action executed from the starting point to a position for the charging of the scheduled flight route plan being the prescribed relationship, is satisfied (see at least [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure that the prescribed relationship of the consumed energy is less than the allotted energy the vehicle currently has available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul with the energy usage model of Bacic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which the available stored energy is used and managed, so that aircraft range and performance can be improved (see at least Bacic; [0004]).
Paul in view of Bacic does not teach wherein the prescribed action includes charging.
Roy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the prescribed action includes charging (see at least [0055]; “Using the flight plan data and the battery data, the hybrid electric controller 210 determines waypoints. For example, at block 306, the hybrid electric controller 210 determines waypoints for when to apply electric power from the battery system based at least in part on the flight plan data and the battery data. The waypoints define when to use electric power for fuel savings, when to fuel power for battery savings, and/or when to charge the batteries,” the waypoint correspond to a prescribed action of charging, it is obvious that based on the required energy compared to the available energy being less than a certain amount a stop is determined to be required and is added to the flight plan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul as modified by Bacic with the charging checkpoints of Roy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of maximizing battery and flight efficiency (see at least Roy; [0002]).
Regarding claim 7 Paul in view of Bacic and Roy renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Bacic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to: in setting, set the additional flight plan if the sum of the amount of consumable power required for the prescribed action in accordance with the execution plan of the post-addition flight plan is less than the remaining capacity of the battery (see at least [0086]; “the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model 111 to validate a pre-determined flight path to ensure it is safe and suitable for use. In some embodiments, the FMS 110 uses the energy usage model to estimate a weather-dependent amount of energy required by the aircraft’s systems 10, 20, 120, 130, to fly the flight path, and accepts the flight path for use only if the required amount of energy is less than the available energy by at least a suitable margin (i.e., leaving a certifiable energy reserve),” the total energy consumed in the flight plan is compared to the energy available in the aircraft, to ensure that the prescribed relationship of the consumed energy is less than the allotted energy the vehicle currently has available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the airport assistance system of Paul with the energy usage model of Bacic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness with which the available stored energy is used and managed, so that aircraft range and performance can be improved (see at least Bacic; [0004]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached on (571) 270-5227. The fax phon