DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 02/09/2026. Claims 1-18 are being considered and further pending examination.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-12, filed 01/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 2 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (“a computation platform”) that is coupled with functional language (“for acquiring”, “for calculating”, “for determining”, “for configuring”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
”a computation platform configured and/or operable for acquiring state variables…” recited in claims 6-7. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will take “a computation platform” as a processor or microcontroller or equivalent based on the following excerpt(s) from the specification:
para [0019] : “In particular, a method for assisting aircraft guidance, operated by a computation platform for aircraft, comprises at least”
para [0067] : “The technique of the method according to the invention can be implemented on a reprogrammable computation machine (a processor or a microcontroller for example) running a program comprising a sequence of non-transient instructions, or on a dedicated computation machine (for example a set of logic gates such as an FPGA or an ASIC, or any other hardware module).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al (US 20140358415 A1) henceforth referred to as McDonald and further in view of The Avionics Handbook (Spitzer et al, 2001) cited in the IDS henceforth referred to as Avionics.
Regarding Claim 1 McDonald teaches A method for assisting aircraft guidance, the method being operated by a computation platform for aircraft and comprising at least (para [0095] : “With reference to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a diagram showing an altitude profile of an aircraft 100 performing an example of an optimised procedural descent 102.”):
a step of acquisition of state variables characterizing an aircraft in flight, of environment variables characterizing an environment of the aircraft and of trajectory variables characterizing a of the aircraft by a computation platform(para [0076] : “In an embodiment, the system comprises a climate module that applies the received air pressure, air temperature, wind speed and wind direction parameters at a plurality of altitudes within a localised region adjacent the destination to construct an environmental profile, the climate module being integrated with the weather module.”, para [0151] : “In one embodiment, the system 500 is arranged to infer the mass and descent target speed of the aircraft as used by the FMS to calculate the reference trajectory. The input variables to the FMS reference trajectory calculation process are referred to as Trajectory Related Input Variables (TRIV). This information needs to be inferred as current FMS are not capable of (automatically) transmitting this information to air traffic control.”);
a step of calculation of a predicted real trajectory consisting in calculating prediction variables based on said state variables, environment variables and reference trajectory variables, the prediction variables characterizing the prediction of a real roll and/or of a real position of the aircraft for an upcoming change of direction of the aircraft by the computation platform( para [0129] : “As shown in FIG. 5, the system 500 has an aircraft data gateway arranged to communicate with the FMS of an aircraft within the serviced airspace. The system 500 also has an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory. The adjustment processor may have access to various models including an Aircraft Performance Model (APM) of the aircraft concerned or real time weather models of the environment to which the system 500 is servicing. Finally, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the system 500 also has function to combine a reference trajectory received from a concerned aircraft with the corrective adjustments derived by the adjustment processor to predict an actual trajectory flown by the aircraft concerned.”);
a step of determination of conformity to determine if the predicted real trajectory which is calculated conforms or does not conform to the reference trajectory by the computation platform (para [0136] : “At step 602, applying the simulation, using the model 601, 603, will determine any deviations from the reference trajectory.”); and
if the predicted real trajectory does not conform to the reference trajectory, a step of configuration and issuance of a trajectory deviation correction by the computation platform informing of a roll and/or of a lateral deviation of the aircraft with respect to the reference trajectory on the upcoming change of direction (para [0137] : “Once these deviations to the planned descent trajectory can be ascertained, corrective controls to the aircraft can be predicted in order to keep the aircraft within the parameters of the planned descent trajectory (604). This may include the application of thrust or speed brake (power/drag) or elevator controls (pitch) to the aircraft in order to bring the aircraft to back to the planned trajectory.”),
wherein the reference trajectory is calculated based on a flight plan and a position of the aircraft and the reference trajectory comprises a succession of straight and curved segments (para [0095] : “With reference to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a diagram showing an altitude profile of an aircraft 100 performing an example of an optimised procedural descent 102. In this example, the pilots have already programmed the FMS to perform a descent to a destination airport for which the reference or planned trajectory is illustrated by 102. Upon reached the planned descent point 101, the FMS commands the throttle controls of the aircraft to change the throttle setting of the aircraft to idle and to initiate the aircraft's descent at the cruise Mach number (cruise speed forward propagation).”, para [0097] : “Once the FMS performs each of these steps, the FMS is able to provide a resulting computed trajectory 204. This trajectory can also be called a planned or reference trajectory in that the FMS has now calculated a trajectory planned for execution by the aircraft as it executes the descent into the destination airport.”, figure 10, figure 10 shows descent segments comprising a succession of straight and curved segments); and
wherein the predicted real trajectory is based on said state variables, said environment variables and said reference trajectory variables, and the predicted real trajectory comprises the prediction of the real roll and/or the real position of the aircraft for an upcoming change of direction of the aircraft calculated from the prediction variables (para [0129] : “As shown in FIG. 5, the system 500 has an aircraft data gateway arranged to communicate with the FMS of an aircraft within the serviced airspace. The system 500 also has an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory. The adjustment processor may have access to various models including an Aircraft Performance Model (APM) of the aircraft concerned or real time weather models of the environment to which the system 500 is servicing. Finally, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the system 500 also has function to combine a reference trajectory received from a concerned aircraft with the corrective adjustments derived by the adjustment processor to predict an actual trajectory flown by the aircraft concerned.”, para [0138] : “The result of this is that the system 500 is able to generate a prediction of the actual trajectory flown by the aircraft during the execution of the planned descent.”). However, McDonald does not explicitly teach issuance of a trajectory deviation alert to a crew.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (systems for trajectory deviation of aircraft), Avionics teaches issuance of a trajectory deviation alert to a crew (§ 15.2.5.1 pg 286 : “If the current aircraft track does not intersect the active lateral leg, then LNAV typically goes into an armed state waiting for the crew to steer the aircraft into a capture geometry before fully engaging to automatically steer the aircraft.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of McDonald with the teachings of Avionics to inform a crew of the state of an aircraft in a situation where a deviation of the trajectory is detected.
Regarding Claim 2 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed as claim 1, further Avionics teaches wherein the conformity determination step consists in comparing values of said prediction variables to predefined threshold values for the reference trajectory of the aircraft (§ 15.2.5.1 pg 285 : “Lateral leg switching and waypoint sequencing —As can be seen in the lateral profile section, the lateral path is composed of several segments. Most lateral course changes are performed as “flyby” transitions. Therefore anticipation of the activation of the next vertical leg is required, such that a smooth capture of that segment is performed without path overshoot. The turn initiation criteria are based on the extent of the course change, the planned bank angle for the turn maneuver, and the ground speed of the aircraft.”, § 15.2.5.1 pg 285 : “Roll control — Based on the aircraft current state provided by the navigation function and the stored lateral profile provided by the trajectory prediction function, lateral guidance produces a roll steering command that can be engaged by the flight controls. This command is both magnitude and rate limited based on aircraft limitations, passenger comfort, and airspace considerations.”, § 15.2.5.1 pg 286 : “This capture path is usually constructed based on the current position and track of the aircraft if it intersects the active lateral leg. If the current aircraft track does not intersect the active lateral leg, then LNAV typically goes into an armed state waiting for the crew to steer the aircraft into a capture geometry before fully engaging to automatically steer the aircraft”).
Regarding Claim 3 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 2, further Avionics teaches wherein the conformity determination step consists in verifying if a predicted real roll value is greater than a predefined maximum roll value and/or in verifying if a predicted real position of the aircraft corresponds to a lateral deviation value greater than a predefined maximum lateral deviation value (§ 15.2.5.1 pg 286 : “This capture path is usually constructed based on the current position and track of the aircraft if it intersects the active lateral leg. If the current aircraft track does not intersect the active lateral leg, then LNAV typically goes into an armed state waiting for the crew to steer the aircraft into a capture geometry before fully engaging to automatically steer the aircraft”, where determination of an intersection of the aircraft track with the active lateral leg is equivalent to verification if the predicted real position corresponds to a lateral deviation value greater than a predefined maximum lateral deviation value as the lateral leg is predefined and a maximum deviation value would be a maximum value where the aircraft track maintains an intersection with the active lateral leg).
Regarding Claim 4 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, further McDonald teaches wherein the step of calculation of a predicted real trajectory comprises an initial step of determination of the position of the aircraft with respect to an upcoming change of direction, making it possible to determine if the aircraft is situated before the upcoming change of direction or if the aircraft has already engaged in a turn corresponding to a change of direction (para [0122] : “With reference to FIG. 5, there is illustrated a block diagram of a system 500 for predicting an actual trajectory of an aircraft comprising:”, para [0123] : “a gateway arranged to receive a planned trajectory of an aircraft, wherein the planned trajectory represents a reference trajectory expected to be followed by the aircraft;”, para [0124] : “an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory, wherein the set of corrective adjustments includes at least one control directive arranged to direct the aircraft to follow the planned trajectory; and”, para [0125] : “a function arranged to process the planned trajectory with the set of corrective adjustments to determine an actual trajectory flown.”).
Regarding Claim 5 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 4, further McDonald teaches wherein the step of calculation of a predicted real trajectory consists in implementing a simulation function to predict a real trajectory of the aircraft, either from a start of the turn for the turn to be flown, or from a current position of the aircraft in the turn for a turn segment remaining to be flown (para [0131] : “Once the planned descent trajectory is transmitted from the FMS of the aircraft to the system 500, the adjustment processor 504 may then proceed to process the planned descent trajectory to identify whether there will be any deviations for the aircraft from the planned descent trajectory once the aircraft executes this planned descent trajectory. In one example, the adjustment processor 504 applies an Aircraft Performance Model 504A and a weather model 504B to the planned descent trajectory and in this process, simulates the aircraft in executing the planned descent trajectory. By simulating the behaviour of the aircraft while executing the planned descent trajectory using a weather model 504B, adverse weather effects which were not previously factored into the calculation of the planned descent trajectory by the FMS onboard the aircraft may then cause the adjustment processor to simulate a deviation from the planned descent trajectory of the aircraft (the weather model 504B likely being more accurate). Once the deviations are simulated, corrective adjustments 506 in the form of control inputs may also be simulated by the adjustment processor 504 to return the aircraft to the planned descent trajectory.” ).
Regarding Claim 6, it recites a device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 7 McDonald teaches A device for assisting aircraft guidance comprising (para [0095] : “With reference to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a diagram showing an altitude profile of an aircraft 100 performing an example of an optimised procedural descent 102.”):
a computation platform configured and/or operable for acquiring state variables characterizing an aircraft in flight, environment variables characterizing the environment of the aircraft and trajectory variables characterizing a reference trajectory of the aircraft (para [0076] : “In an embodiment, the system comprises a climate module that applies the received air pressure, air temperature, wind speed and wind direction parameters at a plurality of altitudes within a localised region adjacent the destination to construct an environmental profile, the climate module being integrated with the weather module.”, para [0151] : “In one embodiment, the system 500 is arranged to infer the mass and descent target speed of the aircraft as used by the FMS to calculate the reference trajectory. The input variables to the FMS reference trajectory calculation process are referred to as Trajectory Related Input Variables (TRIV). This information needs to be inferred as current FMS are not capable of (automatically) transmitting this information to air traffic control.”);
the computation platform configured and/or operable for calculating a predicted real trajectory of the aircraft from said state variables, environment variables and reference trajectory variables, by calculating prediction variables characterizing the prediction of a real roll and/or of a real position of the aircraft for an upcoming change of direction of the aircraft ( para [0129] : “As shown in FIG. 5, the system 500 has an aircraft data gateway arranged to communicate with the FMS of an aircraft within the serviced airspace. The system 500 also has an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory. The adjustment processor may have access to various models including an Aircraft Performance Model (APM) of the aircraft concerned or real time weather models of the environment to which the system 500 is servicing. Finally, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the system 500 also has function to combine a reference trajectory received from a concerned aircraft with the corrective adjustments derived by the adjustment processor to predict an actual trajectory flown by the aircraft concerned.”);
the computation platform configured and/or operable for determining if the calculated predicted real trajectory conforms or does not conform to the reference trajectory (para [0136] : “At step 602, applying the simulation, using the model 601, 603, will determine any deviations from the reference trajectory.”); and
the computation platform configured and/or operable for configuring and issuing a trajectory correction if the predicted real trajectory does not conform to the reference trajectory, (para [0137] : “Once these deviations to the planned descent trajectory can be ascertained, corrective controls to the aircraft can be predicted in order to keep the aircraft within the parameters of the planned descent trajectory (604). This may include the application of thrust or speed brake (power/drag) or elevator controls (pitch) to the aircraft in order to bring the aircraft to back to the planned trajectory.”),
wherein the reference trajectory is calculated based on a flight plan and a position of the aircraft and the reference trajectory comprises a succession of straight and curved segments (para [0095] : “With reference to FIG. 1, there is illustrated a diagram showing an altitude profile of an aircraft 100 performing an example of an optimised procedural descent 102. In this example, the pilots have already programmed the FMS to perform a descent to a destination airport for which the reference or planned trajectory is illustrated by 102. Upon reached the planned descent point 101, the FMS commands the throttle controls of the aircraft to change the throttle setting of the aircraft to idle and to initiate the aircraft's descent at the cruise Mach number (cruise speed forward propagation).”, para [0097] : “Once the FMS performs each of these steps, the FMS is able to provide a resulting computed trajectory 204. This trajectory can also be called a planned or reference trajectory in that the FMS has now calculated a trajectory planned for execution by the aircraft as it executes the descent into the destination airport.”, figure 10, figure 10 shows descent segments comprising a succession of straight and curved segments); and
wherein the predicted real trajectory is based on said state variables, said environment variables and said reference trajectory variables, and the predicted real trajectory comprises the prediction of the real roll and/or the real position of the aircraft for an upcoming change of direction of the aircraft calculated from the prediction variables (para [0129] : “As shown in FIG. 5, the system 500 has an aircraft data gateway arranged to communicate with the FMS of an aircraft within the serviced airspace. The system 500 also has an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory. The adjustment processor may have access to various models including an Aircraft Performance Model (APM) of the aircraft concerned or real time weather models of the environment to which the system 500 is servicing. Finally, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the system 500 also has function to combine a reference trajectory received from a concerned aircraft with the corrective adjustments derived by the adjustment processor to predict an actual trajectory flown by the aircraft concerned.”, para [0138] : “The result of this is that the system 500 is able to generate a prediction of the actual trajectory flown by the aircraft during the execution of the planned descent.”). However, McDonald does not explicitly teach issuance of a trajectory deviation alert to a crew the alert being configured to inform of a roll and/or of a lateral deviation of the aircraft with respect to the reference trajectory, on the upcoming change of direction.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (systems for trajectory deviation of aircraft), Avionics teaches issuance of a trajectory deviation alert to a crew the alert being configured to inform of a roll and/or of a lateral deviation of the aircraft with respect to the reference trajectory, on the upcoming change of direction (§ 15.2.5.1 pg 286 : “If the current aircraft track does not intersect the active lateral leg, then LNAV typically goes into an armed state waiting for the crew to steer the aircraft into a capture geometry before fully engaging to automatically steer the aircraft.”) and
wherein the computation platform is configured and/or operable for comparing values of said prediction variables to predefined threshold values for the reference trajectory of the aircraft when the predicted real trajectory does not conform to the reference trajectory (§ 15.2.5.1 pg 285 : “Lateral leg switching and waypoint sequencing —As can be seen in the lateral profile section, the lateral path is composed of several segments. Most lateral course changes are performed as “flyby” transitions. Therefore anticipation of the activation of the next vertical leg is required, such that a smooth capture of that segment is performed without path overshoot. The turn initiation criteria are based on the extent of the course change, the planned bank angle for the turn maneuver, and the ground speed of the aircraft.”, § 15.2.5.1 pg 285 : “Roll control — Based on the aircraft current state provided by the navigation function and the stored lateral profile provided by the trajectory prediction function, lateral guidance produces a roll steering command that can be engaged by the flight controls. This command is both magnitude and rate limited based on aircraft limitations, passenger comfort, and airspace considerations.”, § 15.2.5.1 pg 286 : “This capture path is usually constructed based on the current position and track of the aircraft if it intersects the active lateral leg. If the current aircraft track does not intersect the active lateral leg, then LNAV typically goes into an armed state waiting for the crew to steer the aircraft into a capture geometry before fully engaging to automatically steer the aircraft”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of McDonald with the teachings of Avionics to inform a crew of the state of an aircraft in a situation where a deviation of the trajectory is detected.
Regarding Claim 8 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches A flight management system (FMS) comprising the device for assisting aircraft guidance as claimed in claim 6 (§ 15.1 pg 265 : “The flight management system typically consists of two units, a computer unit and a control display unit.”).
Regarding Claim 9 the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches A non-transitory non-transitory computer program product, said non-transitory computer program product comprising code instructions to perform the steps of the method for assisting aircraft guidance as claimed in claim 1, when said non-transitory computer program product is executed on a computer (§ 15.1 pg 265 : “The computer unit can be a standalone unit providing both the computing platform and various interfaces to other avionics or it can be integrated as a function on a hardware platform such as an Integrated Modular Avionics cabinet (IMA).”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, further McDonald teaches wherein the predicted real trajectory is based on current aircraft state variables, current environmental variables, and reference trajectory variables (para [0129] : “As shown in FIG. 5, the system 500 has an aircraft data gateway arranged to communicate with the FMS of an aircraft within the serviced airspace. The system 500 also has an adjustment processor arranged to derive a set of corrective adjustments expected to be executed by the aircraft in following the planned trajectory. The adjustment processor may have access to various models including an Aircraft Performance Model (APM) of the aircraft concerned or real time weather models of the environment to which the system 500 is servicing. Finally, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 5, the system 500 also has function to combine a reference trajectory received from a concerned aircraft with the corrective adjustments derived by the adjustment processor to predict an actual trajectory flown by the aircraft concerned.”, para [0138] : “The result of this is that the system 500 is able to generate a prediction of the actual trajectory flown by the aircraft during the execution of the planned descent.”).
Regarding Claim 13, it recites a device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 10 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald and Avionics and further in view of Estkowski et al (US 20100174475 A1) henceforth referred to as Estkowski.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 10, however Avionics does not explicitly teach wherein the current aircraft state variables comprise a current position of the aircraft, a current speed of the aircraft, and a current roll of the aircraft.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (aircraft trajectory prediction), Estkowski teaches wherein the current aircraft state variables comprise a current position of the aircraft, a current speed of the aircraft, and a current roll of the aircraft (para [0017] : “Reference is now made to FIG. 4, which illustrates a general method for predicting a trajectory of an aerospace vehicle. At block 410, an observation of the vehicle's state is accessed. For example, the vehicle state may include roll, speed, heading, pitch, latitude, longitude and altitude.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Avionics with the trajectory generation variables of Estkowski to more accurately predict the aircraft trajectory.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 11 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 11 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald and Avionics and further in view of Guilley et al (US 20100161157 A!) henceforth referred to as Guilley.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of McDonald and Avionics teaches The method as claimed in claim 1, however Avionics does not explicitly teach wherein the issuance of a trajectory deviation alert to a crew by the computation platform comprises displaying the alert on a screen of the aircraft to a crew.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (alert display systems for aircraft), Guilley teaches wherein the issuance of an alert to a crew by the computation platform comprises displaying the alert on a screen of the aircraft to a crew (para [0078] : “When the information 3 received already correspond to alerts, the module for managing the alerts 4 transmits it to a first display device 5.”, as Avionics teaches the generation and issuance of a trajectory deviation alert and Guilley teaches display of alerts on a screen, the combination teaches displaying a trajectory deviation alert on a screen.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Avionics with the alert display of Guilley to “make is possible notably to present the various alerts to the crew.” (para [0078])
Regarding Claim 15, it recites device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 12 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites device for assisting aircraft guidance with limitations substantially the same as claim 12 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20190180631 A1 : Venkataramana et al teaches a system for monitoring conformance of an aircraft to an actual and predicted 4-dimensional trajectory with respect to a reference business trajectory. A flight plan is acquired, a predicted flight trajectory is generated based on latitude, longitude, altitude, speed, and time of the flight plan. An onboard trajectory conformance monitor that is independent of the flight management system monitors the present flight trajectory of the aircraft and anticipates any actual or future deviations from the reference business trajectory.
US 20140343759 A1 : Garrido-Lopez et al teaches a system for guiding an aircraft which includes determining a difference between an estimated time or arrival and a required time of arrival of an aircraft. The system determines If the difference exceeds a threshold time and further includes determination a deviation between a predicted four-dimensional flight trajectory of the aircraft and a measured four-dimensional flight trajectory of the aircraft during flight if the difference does not exceed the threshold time.
US 20170032684 A1 : Guignard et al teaches a system for assisting guidance of an aircraft along a runway approach axis. The system acquires a position deviation between a current position of the aircraft and the approach axis, determines an angle between a longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the approach axis, and determines a lateral offset of the trajectory of the aircraft likely to result from a maneuver of alignment of the longitudinal axis of the aircraft with the runway during the landing of the aircraft. A lateral trajectory correction is computed as a function of the lateral trajectory offset which corrects the position deviation. The position deviation is transmitted to the device for guiding the aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights