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 .
Remarks
This final office action is a response to the amendments filed 09/22/2025. Claims 1, and 3-20 are pending. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous 112(a) rejections. Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to Claims 1, and 3-20 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Laughlin et. al. (US 20190033853 A1) in view of Quiroz-Hernandez et. al. (US 20180174473 A1), Darbois et. al. (US 20150323933 A1), Baiada et. al. (US 9076327 B1), and Alphonso et. al. (US 20180096612 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, O'Laughlin discloses:
A method for optimizing a transit of a vehicle with an estimated time of arrival to a destination, the method comprising: during the transit of the vehicle, performing, by one or more processors hosted (See at least Figure 1 via a system for optimizing a speed profile of an aircraft and ¶0018 via "Time reliability is actually related to the earliest and latest predicted possible Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) values at the RTA waypoint, and thus time reliability encompasses the 'RTA speed envelope' all of the way from the current aircraft location to the RTA waypoint, along the intended flight plan". Additionally see ¶0016 via "identifying, during flight, whether fuel-efficiency or time reliability is the current priority" and also ¶0023 via "The computing device 102 may be located onboard the aircraft 104 or implemented as a ground server")
receiving data impacting the estimated time of arrival of the vehicle to the destination in real-time, wherein the received data includes one or more of an environmental condition, vehicular traffic, a transit restriction, a deviation in a payload of the vehicle, a delay in a departure of the vehicle, or a difference between an estimated and actual zero fuel weight of the vehicle, a request from a controller, or a request from an operator of the vehicle, (See at least ¶0025 via "During typical operation, the computing device 102 obtains relevant data associated with fuel-efficiency, time reliability, a current flight plan, a current RTA, wind data, temperature forecast data, and a current speed profile" and ¶0034 via "Time reliability and fuel-efficiency are factors affecting the ability of an aircraft to arrive at a destination airport or waypoint within constraints of a required time of arrival [RTA]" and also Figure 3 / ¶0039 via"C-2 through C-5 lines are updated time trajectories produced after speed profile updates that occur in response to an increasing time error due to a steady un-forecast and unfavorable wind" . Additionally see ¶0019 via "The system 100 operates to dynamically compute a speed profile for the aircraft, in real-time during flight, to meet a required time of arrival (RTA) and to accommodate time reliability requirements and fuel-efficiency requirements of the flight". Furthermore see at least ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data, atmospheric forecast [wind and temperature] data, air traffic data, and other data compatible with the computing device 102" and ¶0038 via "Data provided by the communication device 216 may include, without limitation, user selections to activate and deactivate processes for prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and for computation of an updated speed profile during flight, and the like")
optimizing, based on the received data and a transit plan for the vehicle, a parameter for an operation of the vehicle to maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within a threshold time, (See at least ¶0038 via "The communication device 216 is configured to receive any data relevant to the prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and to the computation of an updated speed profile during flight". Additionally, see at least ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data" as well as ¶0047 via "(i) computing a time error as a difference between an estimated time of arrival (ETA) and a required time of arrival (RTA) … (ii) setting, by a flight management system (FMS), a guidance speed as the target speed required to reach the waypoint at the RTA plus an updated guidance margin; …")
wherein the optimizing the parameter includes changing one or more of a speed or a route of the vehicle, (See at least ¶0047 via "The guidance margin control strategy includes enabling a speed adjustment applied to the fuel-efficient speed profile that increases the time reliability of the aircraft arriving at a destination location within constraints associated with the RTA.")
sending the optimized parameter to the vehicle, (See at least ¶0027 via "dynamically computing and providing an updated speed profile onboard an aircraft during flight")
automatically optimizing the transit of the vehicle with the estimated time of arrival to the destination during the transit of the vehicle based on the optimized parameter and the operational transit plan (See at least Figure 4 via block 414 which reads "Switch from the fuel-efficient speed profile to a guidance margin control strategy to fly the aircraft to the waypoint, wherein the guidance margin control strategy increases the time reliability by enabling the aircraft to satisfy constrains of the RTA" additionally see at least Figure 4 which illustrates that the switching/optimizing is performed during a current flight).
However, although O'Laughlin discloses that the computing device 102 may be implemented as a ground server as opposed to onboard the aircraft (See O'Laughlin ¶0022-¶0023), O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose that the processors are hosted in an airline operational control.
Nevertheless, Quiroz-Hernandez--who is directed towards a method and device for adjusting performance variables of an aircraft--discloses: processors hosted in an airline operational control (See at least ¶0026 via "The correction data are prepared and checked outside of the system 1, in particular on the ground, for example in an operational centre of the airline company operating the aircraft, by a computer 22." and ¶0077 via "correcting performance variables computed on the basis of the performance database 5 (which is intended for a type of aircraft) in order to optimize them, by adapting them (or adjusting them) to the characteristics peculiar to the aircraft in question" which illustrates the intent of optimizing performance variables)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify O'Laughlin in view of Quiroz-Hernandez's computer hosted in an airline operational control (center) in order to provide a specific ground/off-board location for the processor functions to occur while reducing the computational load/complexity of a flight management system: "in the second alternative, the checking unit 12B, and the memory 14B, are shifted from the flight management system 3 to the computer 22 outside of the flight management system. This makes it possible to reduce the complexity of the flight management system 3 in comparison with the first alternative" [Quiroz-Hernandez ¶0124].
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses the off board system (See at least ¶0023), and Quiroz-Hernandez discloses the airline operation center (See at least ¶0026). However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the optimization including a flight-level change.
Nevertheless, Darbois--who is directed towards optimizing a trajectory of an aircraft--discloses: identifying,(See at least ¶0121 via "On the basis of a reference trajectory 400 (or of a so-called “active” trajectory, that is to say according to the flight plan in the course of realization in accordance with the FMS), the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories. An alternative trajectory comprises plateaus and transitions between plateaus, which satisfy the demands of air safety" as well as ¶0086 via "A “change of flight level” (or “transition” or “transition between plateaus” or “step”) is a trajectory portion describing the change of a plateau carried out at a given flight level to the next")
evaluating, using the operational transit plan and current state data, an impact of the candidate optimization on the estimated time of arrival, including down-path impacts beyond runway arrival; (See at least ¶0117 via "1) the predictions relating to each step through the distance and the time 2) the difference between the optimized profile (query or temporary) and the active flight plan in terms of fuel and time 3) the fuel and the time of arrival at the destination if the profile is inserted into the active" as well as ¶0034 via "The set of these parameters can be encompassed in a so-called “operational” cost of the flight (which may therefore comprise fuel costs, economic gains e.g. the non-losses associated with the on-time arrival of the aircraft, the indirect gains in terms of maintenance costs, salaries, bonuses, etc)")
the optimized parameter comprising at least a flight-level change; (See at least ¶0121 and ¶0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified O'Laughlin in view of Darbois' flight-level change for trajectory optimization in order to provide an additional optimization solution beyond only updating a speed profile in order to consider the gains and losses in terms of fuel and time, depending on the desired prioritization: "At certain moments, as a function of outside events, at regular intervals or in response to a pilot request, the pilot is presented with the gain or the loss (“cost”) associated with each proposed alternative (or with each acceptable transition) for example by means of the displaying of indicators (e.g. gains or losses in terms of time and/or fuel" [Darbois ¶0011].
However, although O'Laughlin discloses a transit plan (See at least O'Laughlin: ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data"), Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the gate information or taxi time being included in the transit plan/flight plan data.
Nevertheless, Baiada--who is directed towards a method and system to predict airport capacity, landing direction, landing runway, and runway availability--discloses: wherein the transit plan for the vehicle comprises at least gate information, taxi time from a runway to a gate, and factors that influence arrival time of the vehicle to the gate for passengers to disembark from the vehicle; (See at least Col. 15 Lines 21-29 via "This forward looking, long trajectory may include numerous flight segments for an aircraft, with the taxi time and the time the aircraft is parked at the gate included in this trajectory. For example, given an aircraft's current position and other factors, it is predicted to land at ORD at 08:45, be at the gate at 08:52, depart the gate at 09:35, takeoff at 09:47 and land at DCA at 11:20 and be at the DCA gate at 11:31. At each point along this long trajectory, numerous factors can influences and change the trajectory." as well as Col. 2 Lines. 36-41 via "Considered aviation data includes, but is not limited to current and predicted: weather (wind direction, wind speed, temperature, cloud ceiling, precipitation, visibility, etc.), airport design and layout, airport/ramp/taxiway congestion (i.e., number of aircraft at the airport taxing to or waiting for a gate, etc.)…")
wherein the received data that includes the vehicular traffic comprises information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point (See at least Col. 2 Lines 36-41 via "Considered aviation data includes, but is not limited to current and predicted: weather (wind direction, wind speed, temperature, cloud ceiling, precipitation, visibility, etc.), airport design and layout, airport/ramp/taxiway congestion (i.e., number of aircraft at the airport taxing to or waiting for a gate, etc.)" **Wherein, the airport/ramp/taxiway congestion corresponds to vehicular traffic and the aircrafts waiting for gates corresponds to information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point. Additionally, see at least Col. 12 Lines 31-33 via "Airline Gate--An parking area, spot, jetway or other structure where aircraft owners/airlines park their aircraft for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers, cargo, etc." **Which corresponds to the passenger disembarking point)
that includes gate-level constraints (See at least Col. 15 Lines 21-29 and Col. 2 Lines. 36-41)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified O'Laughlin in view of the consideration for the gate information, taxi time, and factors that influence arrival time at a gate, such as in Baiada in order to enable airlines to more efficiently manage various assets by utilizing more accurate and objective predictions: "…using available aviation data, allows airlines, Air Traffic Control (ATC) and airports to better prepare and manage various assets, airline/airport functions and services at the specified airport, from a system perspective, to improve ATC, airline and airport operations and profitability" [Baiada Col. 2 Lines 29-35].
Furthermore, although O'Laughlin discloses vehicular traffic (O'Laughlin ¶0022 via " air traffic data"), and Baiada discloses vehicular traffic through information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point (See Baiada Col. 2 Lines 36-41), Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the information associated with another vehicle using the passenger disembarking point as the specific disembarking point that is designated to the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Alphonso--who is directed towards gate optimization--discloses: information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point designated for the vehicle
(See at least Figure 3 via Step 315 "Gate Occupied?" and also ¶0054 via " In 315, the optimization server 125 determines whether the identified expected gate is occupied. In one manner, occupancy may relate to whether an aircraft is currently physically using the expected gate. In another manner, occupancy may not necessarily pertain to whether there is a physical presence but whether there is a potential that an aircraft will occupy the expected gate at the time the selected aircraft is expected to use the expected gate.")
PNG
media_image1.png
520
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the method of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Alphonso's consideration of whether there is a conflict and if the assigned gate will still be able to be used, or if it is more optimal to select another gate. This would have been obvious to consider because this factor can impact whether the vehicle will arrive at the desired time and can cause delays in some situations where there is a conflict: "over the course of one or more aircraft using the expected gate, delays may accumulate that prevent the arriving aircraft from using the expected gate within a reasonable delay time. By not compensating for such conditions despite efforts to adjust estimates in light of these factors, there may be a plurality of issues that arise due to the delay caused to the arriving aircraft. For example, a passenger may be delayed and be incapable of boarding a connecting flight. In another example, crews (both inside and outside of the aircraft) may be delayed in performing their respective jobs." [Alphonso ¶0003], thus, it would be obvious to consider in the optimization in order to mitigate delays and ensure the vehicle can maintain the desired ETA.
Regarding Claim 4, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the optimizing is further based on one or more of current weather, or optimization initiatives recommended for the transit (See at least ¶0038 via "As described in more detail below, data received by the communication device 216 may include, without limitation: flight plan data, runway analysis data, weather data, and other data compatible with the computing device 200. The communication device 216 is configured to receive any data relevant to the prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and to the computation of an updated speed profile during flight" and ¶0029 via "The system memory 204 is configured to store any obtained or generated data associated with dynamically computing and updating a speed profile for an aircraft, during flight, and graphical elements associated with the updated speed profile").
Regarding Claim 5, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the optimizing includes re-planning a speed of the vehicle without changing a route of the vehicle (See at least ¶0036 via "The fuel-efficient speed profile achieves fuel-efficiency for the aircraft by calculating a speed adjustment required for correction of a time error, and spreading the calculated speed adjustment along an entire trajectory, wherein the trajectory extends from the current location of the aircraft to a destination location").
Regarding Claim 7, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (See at least Figure 1 and "system for optimizing a speed profile of an aircraft").
Regarding Claim 8, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 7.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the optimizing is further based on one or more of speed, altitude, fuel, or performance data of the aircraft (See at least ¶0001 via "embodiments of the subject matter relate to optimization of a speed profile in combination with optimization of fuel-efficiency onboard an aircraft to meet an RTA").
Regarding Claim 9, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 7.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the optimizing includes maintaining a time of arrival at a given waypoint en route to the destination by managing a speed profile of the aircraft (See at least Figure 4 and "a process for computing a required speed profile for an aircraft to meet a required time of arrival (RTA) for a waypoint of a current flight")
subject to regulatory flight plan restrictions (See at least ¶0019 via "accommodate time reliability requirements and fuel-efficiency requirements of the flight" and ¶0034 via "The priority determination module 212 evaluates aircraft parameters and flight plan parameters to determine whether time reliability or fuel-efficiency is a current priority for the aircraft")
Regarding Claim 13, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, Darbois discloses: wherein the optimizing evaluates and adjusts optimization initiatives against an overall impact to transit of the vehicle (See at least ¶0121 via "On the basis of a reference trajectory 400 (or of a so-called “active” trajectory, that is to say according to the flight plan in the course of realization in accordance with the FMS), the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories. As well as ¶0117 via "1) the predictions relating to each step through the distance and the time 2) the difference between the optimized profile (query or temporary) and the active flight plan in terms of fuel and time 3) the fuel and the time of arrival at the destination if the profile is inserted into the active" as well as ¶0034 via "The set of these parameters can be encompassed in a so-called “operational” cost of the flight (which may therefore comprise fuel costs, economic gains e.g. the non-losses associated with the on-time arrival of the aircraft, the indirect gains in terms of maintenance costs, salaries, bonuses, etc)").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified O'Laughlin in further view of Darbois’s evaluation of impacts on changing conditions (such as an optimized profile which includes a flight level change) to the overall flight in order to weigh the gains/losses costs and base the decision on what the priority is (whether it is abiding by time constrains or prioritizing fuel usage): "At certain moments, as a function of outside events, at regular intervals or in response to a pilot request, the pilot is presented with the gain or the loss (“cost”) associated with each proposed alternative (or with each acceptable transition) for example by means of the displaying of indicators (e.g. gains or losses in terms of time and/or fuel" [Darbois ¶0011].
Regarding Claim 20, O'Laughlin discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, that when executed during a transit of a vehicle by at least one processor (See at least ¶0029 via "The at least one processor 202 is communicatively coupled to the system memory 204. The system memory 204 is configured to store any obtained or generated data associated with dynamically computing and updating a speed profile for an aircraft, during flight, and graphical elements associated with the updated speed profile." as well as ¶0020 via "The computing device 102 may be implemented by any computing device that includes at least one processor" and ¶0023 via "the computing device 102 may be located onboard the aircraft 104 or implemented as a ground server")
perform a method for optimizing the transit of the vehicle with an estimated time of arrival to a destination, (See at least Figure 1 via a system for optimizing a speed profile of an aircraft and also ¶0018 via "Time reliability is actually related to the earliest and latest predicted possible Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) values at the RTA waypoint, and thus time reliability encompasses the 'RTA speed envelope' all of the way from the current aircraft location to the RTA waypoint, along the intended flight plan")
the method comprising: (Regarding the method steps, see Claim 1 rejection as the steps are the same).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Laughlin et. al. (US 20190033853 A1), Quiroz-Hernandez et. al. (US 20180174473 A1), Darbois et. al. (US 20150323933 A1), Baiada et. al. (US 9076327 B1), and Alphonso et. al. (US 20180096612 A1) in view of Fuscone et. al. (US 20150241295 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose, but Fuscone--who is in the same field of endeavor--discloses: wherein the received data is a difference between an estimated and actual zero fuel weight of the vehicle (See at least ¶0093: "For example, it will include an Estimated Zero Fuel Weight (EZFW) value for the aircraft which is the estimated total weight (including passengers, cargo and crew) but excluding the weight of the fuel. The Actual Zero Fuel Weight (AZFW) is determined after the aircraft has been loaded and is typically less than the EZFW because some passengers fail to embark or some cargo is not loaded.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Fuscone's measurement and comparison of the estimated and actual fuel weights in order to more accurately account an updated minimum fuel requirement: "Accordingly the OFP gives the captain estimated values (typically based on accurate information) as an AZFW with which to adjust (typically, to reduce) the minimum fuel requirement in order to take this change in circumstances into account" [Fuscone ¶0093].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Laughlin et. al. (US 20190033853 A1), Quiroz-Hernandez et. al. (US 20180174473 A1), Darbois et. al. (US 20150323933 A1), Baiada et. al. (US 9076327 B1), and Alphonso et. al. (US 20180096612 A1) in view of Madhusudan et. al. (US 20180012499 A1), Fuscone et. al. (US 20150241295 A1), and Bailey et. al. (US 9472106 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: further comprising: monitoring each of an environmental condition (¶0022 via "atmospheric forecast [wind and temperature] data") vehicular traffic (¶0022 via "air traffic data"),
However, O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the delay in departure or transit restriction, but Madhusudan discloses: a delay in a departure of the vehicle, (See at least ¶0039 via “Each of these noise factors may interdependently affect the airport demand at the target airport. For instance, a late departure may cause further disruptions throughout the remainder of a day as it affects not only the current flight, but all subsequent legs for the necessary equipment.”)
a transit restriction, (See at least ¶0038 via “According to an exemplary embodiment of the method 200, noise factors may include late departures, late arrivals, weather conditions, taxi route information, runway and/or taxiway conditions (e.g., configurations, crossings, congestion, closings, etc.), arrival gate conditions, ramp traffic, airport density, (e.g., arrival and departure queue lengths), flight restrictions (e.g., the FAA may restrict departure flow to certain areas and thus affect departure queue lengths, arrivals, etc.).”)
However, O'Laughlin and Madhusudan do not explicitly disclose, but Fuscone--who is in the same field of endeavor--discloses: a difference between an estimated and actual zero fuel weight of the vehicle,(See at least ¶0093: "For example, it will include an Estimated Zero Fuel Weight (EZFW) value for the aircraft which is the estimated total weight (including passengers, cargo and crew) but excluding the weight of the fuel. The Actual Zero Fuel Weight (AZFW) is determined after the aircraft has been loaded and is typically less than the EZFW because some passengers fail to embark or some cargo is not loaded.")
Furthermore, O'Laughlin, Madhusudan, and Fusconea deviation in a payload of the vehicle, (See at least Col. 8 Lines 21-28 via "Each message, from different sources, may reflect the current conditions known to that particular system (i.e., the sensed, entered and calculated flight information data such as flight plan, aircraft state, etc.)" and also ¶019 via "The flight information object can include a plurality of fields containing flight information, such as elements of flight plans, flight routes, flight trajectories, flight messages, aircraft state data (such as weight, center of gravity, fuel remaining, etc.) and environmental information")
a request from a controller for the destination, (See at least Col. 20 Lines 47-48 via "Either the ANSP or the pilot can request modifications, and the dispatcher may respond to the request")
and a request from an operator of the vehicle (See at least Col. 10 Lines 7-9 via "Users associated with an aircraft or flight can request a new flight plan and/or new environmental information from a operations center or air traffic control center") in a holistic manner (See at least Col 18 Lines 55-67 and Col. 19 Lines 1-3 via "The most efficient route (e.g., approach, arrival and departure route) is automatically determined based on currently available flight information including the total current aerodrome environment. The automation algorithms used to determine the most efficient route considers course to the destination, time, fuel, airline costs, distance, weather, air traffic controller, weather, environment, terrain, and regulatory restrictions, direct routing and back courses. The algorithms also consider a time aspect of the flight information to determine its relevance or value in determining the most efficiency route. The most efficiency route varies depending on the currency of real-time, historical, probabilities and forecasted flight information. The determination of the efficient route also takes into account the timeframe of the flight to determine the most advantageous time-based route (“4D” route)")
in a holistic manner (See at least Col 18 Lines 55-67 and Col. 19 Lines 1-3 via "The most efficient route (e.g., approach, arrival and departure route) is automatically determined based on currently available flight information including the total current aerodrome environment. The automation algorithms used to determine the most efficient route considers course to the destination, time, fuel, airline costs, distance, weather, air traffic controller, weather, environment, terrain, and regulatory restrictions, direct routing and back courses. The algorithms also consider a time aspect of the flight information to determine its relevance or value in determining the most efficiency route. The most efficiency route varies depending on the currency of real-time, historical, probabilities and forecasted flight information. The determination of the efficient route also takes into account the timeframe of the flight to determine the most advantageous time-based route (“4D” route)").
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to further modify Modified O’Laughlin with the consideration of the departure delay and transit restriction of Madhusudan, the estimated/actual zero fuel weight of Fuscone, and the monitored elements of Bailey in order to have a system that gathers the most accurate data that considers a plurality of types of data when determining whether the speed or route should be adjusted in order to meet the ETA. This would be obvious in accounting for the most updated and accurate information in order to better consider necessary circumstances before performing a change (such as optimizing a parameter): "Accordingly the OFP gives the captain estimated values (typically based on accurate information) as an AZFW with which to adjust (typically, to reduce) the minimum fuel requirement in order to take this change in circumstances into account" [Fuscone ¶0093]. Furthermore, the automation of the data gathering in a holistic manner would be obvious in lessening the burden on the pilots while in flight: “By predicting performance (e.g., hold time, arrival time, fuel burn, passengers making connections, etc.) and their probabilities of occurrence based on real time conditions and flight history for a given route or time, pilots need not access and analyze vast amounts of flight information for the benefit of improving operational performance” [Bailey Col. 26 Lines 32-37].
Claims 10-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Laughlin et. al. (US 20190033853 A1), Quiroz-Hernandez et. al. (US 20180174473 A1), Darbois et. al. (US 20150323933 A1), Baiada et. al. (US 9076327 B1), and Alphonso et. al. (US 20180096612 A1) in view of Cannizzaro et. al. (US 20180283884 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the optimizing the parameter further includes changing one of a speed of the vehicle or a route of the vehicle, and (See at least ¶0047 via "The guidance margin control strategy includes enabling a speed adjustment applied to the fuel-efficient speed profile that increases the time reliability of the aircraft arriving at a destination location within constraints associated with the RTA")
However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose, but Cannizzaro--who is in the same field of endeavor-- discloses: evaluating whether the vehicle will maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within a threshold time based on the changed one of a speed of the vehicle or a route of the vehicle (See at least ¶0021 via "If the projected arrival times of the nodes are not close to the meeting time, then valid actions may be determined for one or more nodes to take to make the projected arrival times for the nodes be closer to the meeting time. Then, if the current time is not close to the meeting time, another iteration may complete by collecting data and constraints, listing valid actions, and suggesting actions to the nodes as needed" and ¶0022 via "The set of valid actions may, for example, include making a stop at a tourist site, changing travel speed, and changing travel route."
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the Invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro's method of iteratively evaluating/determining whether the node (vehicle) is not expected to arrive (ETA) within a threshold time of the meeting time (RTA), and suggesting corrective action of adjusting speed/altering route in order to have a greater chance of having an expected time of arrival (ETA) be within the threshold time of the meeting time (RTA). Thus "improv[ing] the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point [RTA]" [Cannizzaro ¶0021].
Regarding Claim 11, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 10.
Furthermore, Cannizzaro discloses: wherein the optimizing the parameter further includes changing the other of a speed of the vehicle or a route of the vehicle when the evaluating indicates the vehicle will not maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within the threshold time, and evaluating, for a second time, (See at least Figure 2 and ¶0012 via " If the projected arrival times of the nodes are not close to the meeting time, then valid actions may be determined for one or more nodes to take to make the projected arrival times for the nodes be closer to the meeting time. Then, if the current time is not close to the meeting time, another iteration may complete by collecting data and constraints, listing valid actions, and suggesting actions to the nodes as needed")
whether the vehicle will maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within the threshold time based on the changed other of a speed of the vehicle or a route of the vehicle (See at least Figure 2, which shows that if arrival time (ETA) is not close to (threshold time ¶0036) meeting time (RTA), the flows moves to step 214 which includes corrective action such as ¶0037 via "Alternatively, the control system may interact with electronic devices to implement the corrective actions transparently to the user. For example, the control system may direct a car to lower a speed limiter to alter the node's travel speed or the control system may instruct a navigation system to provide an altered travel route for the user to follow" - The flow of Figure 2 repeats (revaluates) as long as the current time is not within a threshold time of the meeting time (RTA), as then, there is insufficient time to perform corrective action)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro's method of iteratively evaluating/determining whether the node (vehicle) is not expected to arrive (ETA) within a threshold time of the meeting time (RTA), and suggesting corrective action of adjusting speed/altering route in order to have a greater chance of having an expected time of arrival (ETA) be within the threshold time of the meeting time (RTA). Thus "improv[ing] the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point [RTA]" [Cannizzaro ¶0021].
Regarding Claim 12, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 11.
Furthermore, Cannizzaro discloses: wherein the optimizing the parameter further includes changing both of a speed of the vehicle and a route of the vehicle when the evaluating, for the second time, indicates the vehicle will not maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within the threshold time, and evaluating, for a third time, whether the vehicle will maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within the threshold time based on the changed both of a speed of the vehicle and a route of the vehicle (See at least Figure 2, which shows that if arrival time (ETA) is not close to (threshold time ¶0036) meeting time (RTA), the flows moves to step 214 which includes corrective action such as ¶0037 via "Alternatively, the control system may interact with electronic devices to implement the corrective actions transparently to the user. For example, the control system may direct a car to lower a speed limiter to alter the node's travel speed or the control system may instruct a navigation system to provide an altered travel route for the user to follow" - The flow of Figure 2 repeats (revaluates) as long as the current time is not within a threshold time of the meeting time (RTA), as then, there is insufficient time to perform corrective action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro's method of iteratively evaluating/determining whether the node (vehicle) is not expected to arrive (ETA) within a threshold time of the meeting time (RTA), and suggesting corrective action of adjusting speed/altering route in order to have a greater chance of having an expected time of arrival (ETA) be within the threshold time of the meeting time (RTA). Thus "improv[ing] the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point [RTA]" [Cannizzaro ¶0021].
Regarding Claim 14, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the method of Claim 1.
However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose, but Cannizzaro discloses: wherein the receiving the data is based on one or more of a change in the data, a request from an operator of the vehicle, or a periodic update (See at least ¶0022 via "Periodically or in response to an event, the control system may evaluate the information transmitted by the people involved in the synchronization indicating current position and constraints (e.g., currently travelling by plane) and then identify a set of valid actions that the persons who are less constrained may take to adapt to have a projected arrival time that may be closer to the meeting time").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro in order to explicitly define what causes the data to be received. In this case, Cannizzaro’s periodic update or response to an event triggering the receiving date would be an obvious addition to the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in order to have the most up to date/accurate information when determining whether there needs to be an action taken (such as adjusting speed or route) of the vehicle in order to meet the ETA.
Regarding Claim 15, O'Laughlin discloses:
An off-board system (See at least ¶0023 via "The computing device 102 may be located onboard the aircraft 104 or implemented as a ground server, and the computing device 102 communicates with the FMS 106 and the one or more avionics systems 108 via wired and/or wireless communication connection. The computing device 102 and the server system 112 are generally disparately located, and the computing device 102 communicates with the server system 112 via the data communication network 110 and/or via communication mechanisms onboard the aircraft 104" and Figure 1 via a system for optimizing a speed profile of an aircraft and also ¶0018 via "Time reliability is actually related to the earliest and latest predicted possible Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) values at the RTA waypoint, and thus time reliability encompasses the 'RTA speed envelope' all of the way from the current aircraft location to the RTA waypoint, along the intended flight plan")
the off- board system comprising: a memory, and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: (See at least Figure 2 via at least one processor 202 and system memory 204)
store, using an operational transit plan database, an operational transit plan for the vehicle, (See at least ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data")
receive, using a scenario planner, data impacting the estimated time of arrival of the vehicle to the destination in real-time, wherein the received data includes one or more of an environmental condition, vehicular traffic, a transit restriction, a deviation in a payload of the vehicle, a delay in a departure of the vehicle, or a difference between an estimated and actual zero fuel weight of the vehicle, a request from a controller, or a request from an operator of the vehicle, (See at least communication device 216, and ¶0038 via "data received by the communication device 216 may include, without limitation: flight plan data, runway analysis data, weather data, and other data compatible with the computing device 200. The communication device 216 is configured to receive any data relevant to the prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and to the computation of an updated speed profile during flight" and ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data, atmospheric forecast [wind and temperature] data, air traffic data, and other data compatible with the computing device 102" and ¶0038 via "Data provided by the communication device 216 may include, without limitation, user selections to activate and deactivate processes for prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and for computation of an updated speed profile during flight, and the like")
optimize, using the scenario planner based on the received data, a parameter in real-time for an operation of the vehicle to maintain the estimated time of arrival to the destination within a threshold time; (See at least ¶0038 via "The communication device 216 is configured to receive any data relevant to the prioritization of time reliability and fuel-efficiency and to the computation of an updated speed profile during flight". Additionally, see at least ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data" as well as ¶0047 via "(i) computing a time error as a difference between an estimated time of arrival (ETA) and a required time of arrival (RTA) … (ii) setting, by a flight management system (FMS), a guidance speed as the target speed required to reach the waypoint at the RTA plus an updated guidance margin; …" additionally, see at least Figure 2 via flight strategy switching module 214)
send, using the scenario planner, the optimized parameter comprising (See at least ¶0027 via "dynamically computing and providing an updated speed profile onboard an aircraft during flight" additionally, see at least Figure 2 via flight strategy switching module 214)
automatically optimize the transit of the vehicle with the estimated time of arrival to the destination during the transit of the vehicle based on the optimized parameter and the operational transit plan (See at least Figure 4 via block 414 which reads "Switch from the fuel-efficient speed profile to a guidance margin control strategy to fly the aircraft to the waypoint, wherein the guidance margin control strategy increases the time reliability by enabling the aircraft to satisfy constrains of the RTA").
However, although O'Laughlin discloses that the computing device 102 may be implemented as a ground server as opposed to onboard the aircraft (See O'Laughlin ¶0022-¶0023), O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose that the processors are hosted in an airline operational control.
Nevertheless, Quiroz-Hernandez--who is directed towards a method and device for adjusting performance variables of an aircraft--discloses: hosted in an airline operational control (See at least ¶0026 via "The correction data are prepared and checked outside of the system 1, in particular on the ground, for example in an operational centre of the airline company operating the aircraft, by a computer 22." and ¶0077 via "correcting performance variables computed on the basis of the performance database 5 (which is intended for a type of aircraft) in order to optimize them, by adapting them (or adjusting them) to the characteristics peculiar to the aircraft in question" which illustrates the intent of optimizing performance variables)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify O'Laughlin in view of Quiroz-Hernandez's computer hosted in an airline operational control (center) in order to provide a specific ground/off-board location for the processor functions to occur while reducing the computational load/complexity of a flight management system: "in the second alternative, the checking unit 12B, and the memory 14B, are shifted from the flight management system 3 to the computer 22 outside of the flight management system. This makes it possible to reduce the complexity of the flight management system 3 in comparison with the first alternative" [Quiroz-Hernandez ¶0124].
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses the off board system (See at least ¶0023), and Quiroz-Hernandez discloses the airline operation center (See at least ¶0026). However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the optimization including a flight-level change.
Nevertheless, Darbois--who is directed towards optimizing a trajectory of an aircraft--discloses: identify, using the route generator, a candidate optimization comprising at least a flight- level change; (See at least ¶0121 via "On the basis of a reference trajectory 400 (or of a so-called “active” trajectory, that is to say according to the flight plan in the course of realization in accordance with the FMS), the method comprises steps which require the determination 420 of candidate alternative trajectories. An alternative trajectory comprises plateaus and transitions between plateaus, which satisfy the demands of air safety" as well as ¶0086 via "A “change of flight level” (or “transition” or “transition between plateaus” or “step”) is a trajectory portion describing the change of a plateau carried out at a given flight level to the next", also see at least ¶0090 via "Flight plan (FPLN) 202, for inputting the geographical elements constituting the “skeleton” of the route to be followed, such as the points imposed by the departure and arrival procedures, the routing points, the air corridors (or “airways” as they are commonly known)")
evaluate, using the route generator, an impact of the candidate optimization on the estimated time of arrival based on the inserted data and the optimized parameter, including down-path impacts beyond runway arrival; (See at least ¶0117 via "1) the predictions relating to each step through the distance and the time 2) the difference between the optimized profile (query or temporary) and the active flight plan in terms of fuel and time 3) the fuel and the time of arrival at the destination if the profile is inserted into the active" as well as ¶0034 via "The set of these parameters can be encompassed in a so-called “operational” cost of the flight (which may therefore comprise fuel costs, economic gains e.g. the non-losses associated with the on-time arrival of the aircraft, the indirect gains in terms of maintenance costs, salaries, bonuses, etc)" as well as ¶0090)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Modified O'Laughlin in view of Darbois' flight-level change for trajectory optimization in order to provide an additional optimization solution beyond only updating a speed profile in order to consider the gains and losses in terms of fuel and time, depending on the desired prioritization: "At certain moments, as a function of outside events, at regular intervals or in response to a pilot request, the pilot is presented with the gain or the loss (“cost”) associated with each proposed alternative (or with each acceptable transition) for example by means of the displaying of indicators (e.g. gains or losses in terms of time and/or fuel" [Darbois ¶0011].
However, although O'Laughlin discloses a transit plan (See at least O'Laughlin: ¶0022 via "The server system 112 may store and provide any type of data used to dynamically compute and update a speed profile for the aircraft 104 during flight. Such data may include, without limitation: flight plan data"), Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the gate information or taxi time being included in the transit plan/flight plan data.
Nevertheless, Baiada--who is directed towards a method and system to predict airport capacity, landing direction, landing runway, and runway availability--discloses: wherein the operational transit plan comprises at least gate information, taxi time from a runway to a gate, and factors that influence arrival time of the vehicle to the gate for passengers to disembark from the vehicle; (See at least Col. 15 Lines 21-29 via "This forward looking, long trajectory may include numerous flight segments for an aircraft, with the taxi time and the time the aircraft is parked at the gate included in this trajectory. For example, given an aircraft's current position and other factors, it is predicted to land at ORD at 08:45, be at the gate at 08:52, depart the gate at 09:35, takeoff at 09:47 and land at DCA at 11:20 and be at the DCA gate at 11:31. At each point along this long trajectory, numerous factors can influences and change the trajectory." as well as Col. 2 Lines. 36-41 via "Considered aviation data includes, but is not limited to current and predicted: weather (wind direction, wind speed, temperature, cloud ceiling, precipitation, visibility, etc.), airport design and layout, airport/ramp/taxiway congestion (i.e., number of aircraft at the airport taxing to or waiting for a gate, etc.)…")
wherein the received data that includes the vehicular traffic comprises information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point designated for the vehicle, wherein the passenger disembarking point is the gate for passengers to disembark from the vehicle; (See at least Col. 2 Lines 36-41 via "Considered aviation data includes, but is not limited to current and predicted: weather (wind direction, wind speed, temperature, cloud ceiling, precipitation, visibility, etc.), airport design and layout, airport/ramp/taxiway congestion (i.e., number of aircraft at the airport taxing to or waiting for a gate, etc.)" **Wherein, the airport/ramp/taxiway congestion corresponds to vehicular traffic and the aircrafts waiting for gates corresponds to information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point. Additionally, see at least Col. 12 Lines 31-33 via "Airline Gate--An parking area, spot, jetway or other structure where aircraft owners/airlines park their aircraft for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers, cargo, etc." **Which corresponds to the passenger disembarking point).
Furthermore, although O'Laughlin discloses vehicular traffic (O'Laughlin ¶0022 via " air traffic data"), and Baiada discloses vehicular traffic through information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point (See Baiada Col. 2 Lines 36-41), Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose the information associated with another vehicle using the passenger disembarking point as the specific disembarking point that is designated to the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Alphonso--who is directed towards gate optimization--discloses: information associated with another vehicle using a passenger disembarking point designated for the vehicle (See at least Figure 3 via Step 315 "Gate Occupied?" and also ¶0054 via " In 315, the optimization server 125 determines whether the identified expected gate is occupied. In one manner, occupancy may relate to whether an aircraft is currently physically using the expected gate. In another manner, occupancy may not necessarily pertain to whether there is a physical presence but whether there is a potential that an aircraft will occupy the expected gate at the time the selected aircraft is expected to use the expected gate.")
PNG
media_image1.png
520
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the method of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Alphonso's consideration of whether there is a conflict and if the assigned gate will still be able to be used, or if it is more optimal to select another gate. This would have been obvious to consider because this factor can impact whether the vehicle will arrive at the desired time and can cause delays in some situations where there is a conflict: "over the course of one or more aircraft using the expected gate, delays may accumulate that prevent the arriving aircraft from using the expected gate within a reasonable delay time. By not compensating for such conditions despite efforts to adjust estimates in light of these factors, there may be a plurality of issues that arise due to the delay caused to the arriving aircraft. For example, a passenger may be delayed and be incapable of boarding a connecting flight. In another example, crews (both inside and outside of the aircraft) may be delayed in performing their respective jobs." [Alphonso ¶0003], thus, it would be obvious to consider in the optimization in order to mitigate delays and ensure the vehicle can maintain the desired ETA.
However, Modified O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose, but Cannizzaro—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses: insert, using a route generator, the received data into an evaluation copy of the stored operational transit plan, (See at least ¶0024 via "The constraints and associated constraint weights may be analyzed to identify the nodes that have travel routes that should be altered" and ¶0025 via "For instance, travel navigation software may automatically update a travel route or an electronic control unit within a car or other vehicle may be instructed to lower a speed limiter or alter cruise control")
generate, using the route generator, an impact summary based on the evaluated change, (See at least ¶0036 via "Based on the comparison of projected arrival times to the meeting time performed previously at 212, one or more nodes are identified that have projected arrival times that are outside the threshold acceptable time range, for example, nodes may be identified as being late nodes. The identified nodes and associated list of available actions for each node may be analyzed to determine a corrective action or a combination of corrective actions that may be added to the node travel route to alter the projected arrival time to be closer to the meeting time (i.e., within the threshold acceptable time range)")
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to combine the elements of Cannizzaro to the system of Modified O’Laughlin in order to iteratively evaluate the impacts and whether the targeted arrival time will be met and determine whether corrective action/a parameter should be optimized in order to meet the targeted time. These are obvious additions in order to “improve the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point” [Cannizaro ¶0021]. Due to the fact that conditions may be constantly changing, and the data is updated, the iterative determination of whether the nodes (vehicle) will meet the arrival time is obvious to account for the changing conditions that could impact the arrival time at different times throughout the flight/transit.
Regarding Claim 16, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the system of Claim 15.
Furthermore, Darbois discloses air safety rules (See at least ¶0059), but does not explicitly disclose the database.
Nevertheless, Cannizzaro discloses: further comprising: an optimization initiative database to store an optimization initiative for the vehicle, (See at least ¶0034 via "Valid actions may be determined based on the previously received constraints. A data repository, such as a database 114, may contain predefined available valid actions mapped to constraints. More specifically, the database 114 may be queried to retrieve the predefined valid actions for a given constraint" and " Furthermore, valid actions may be modified based on node data, such as a location or time, to limit certain actions to be safer for a person or to comply with local laws")
wherein the scenario planner is further configured to optimize the parameter based on the received data and the optimization initiative (See at least Figure 2 Steps 206-210, 212, 214, and 216. Also see ¶0021 via "If the projected arrival times of the nodes are not close to the meeting time, then valid actions may be determined for one or more nodes to take to make the projected arrival times for the nodes be closer to the meeting time. Then, if the current time is not close to the meeting time, another iteration may complete by collecting data and constraints, listing valid actions, and suggesting actions to the nodes as needed")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro’s database and scenario planner in order to “improve the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes [vehicles] and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point” [¶0021 Cannizzaro]. Due to the fact that conditions may be constantly changing, and the data is updated, the iterative determination of whether the nodes (vehicle) will meet the arrival time is obvious to account for the changing conditions that could impact the arrival time at different times throughout the flight/transit.
Regarding Claim 17, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the system of Claim 16.
Furthermore, Cannizzaro discloses: wherein the optimization initiative includes a restriction to one or more of a speed or route of the vehicle (See at least ¶0034 via "Furthermore, valid actions may be modified based on node data, such as a location or time, to limit certain actions to be safer for a person or to comply with local laws. For example, for a person traveling by car, a route change may not be allowed as a valid action during evening hours at the person's location since an alternate route may be more dangerous at night").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the invention of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro’s consideration of a restriction with the speed or route of the vehicle in order to consider necessary constraints when determining what types of action the vehicle may be able to take. For example, an aircraft’s route change may not be allowed as a valid action due to airspace restrictions of not being able to fly over specific countries since a shorter route might be one over a country with an airspace that is dangerous or not available to fly over. These types of restrictions are obvious to consider when determining how to comply with a time constraint amongst other limitations such as laws that must be complied with.
Regarding Claim 18, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the system of Claim 15.
Furthermore, Cannizzaro discloses: wherein the scenario planner is further configured to choose another parameter for optimization when the impact summary indicates the change to the estimated time of arrival is outside a threshold value (See at least Figure 2 Steps 210, 212, 214, 216, and the flow back to 206. Also see ¶0021 via "If the projected arrival times of the nodes are not close to the meeting time, then valid actions may be determined for one or more nodes to take to make the projected arrival times for the nodes be closer to the meeting time. Then, if the current time is not close to the meeting time, another iteration may complete by collecting data and constraints, listing valid actions, and suggesting actions to the nodes as needed" and ¶0022 via "The set of valid actions may, for example, include making a stop at a tourist site, changing travel speed, and changing travel route.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to combine the elements of Cannizzaro to the system of Modified O'Laughlin in order to iteratively evaluate whether the targeted arrival time will be met and determine whether additional corrective action/a parameter should be optimized in order to meet the targeted time. These are obvious additions in order to “improve the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point” [Cannizaro ¶0021]. Due to the fact that conditions may be constantly changing, and the data is updated, the iterative determination of whether the nodes (vehicle) will meet the arrival time is obvious to account for the changing conditions that could impact the arrival time at different times throughout the flight/transit.
Regarding Claim 19, Modified O'Laughlin discloses the system of Claim 15.
Furthermore, O'Laughlin discloses: wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (See at least Figure 1 and "system for optimizing a speed profile of an aircraft")
However, O'Laughlin does not explicitly disclose, but Cannizzaro discloses: and the parameter is one or more of a direct route, or a route deviation (See at least ¶0021 via " If the projected arrival times of the nodes are not close to the meeting time, then valid actions may be determined for one or more nodes to take to make the projected arrival times for the nodes be closer to the meeting time. Then, if the current time is not close to the meeting time, another iteration may complete by collecting data and constraints, listing valid actions, and suggesting actions to the nodes as needed" and ¶0022 via "The set of valid actions may, for example, include making a stop at a tourist site, changing travel speed, and changing travel route").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify the system of Modified O'Laughlin in view of Cannizzaro’s route deviation parameter in order to “improve the technical field of dynamic navigation by analyzing current data and constraints of nodes and then determining route alterations to one or more nodes in order to synchronize when the nodes arrive at a meeting point” [Cannizaro ¶0021]. Due to the fact that conditions may be constantly changing, and the data is updated, a deviation in route may be a corrective action parameter that is adjusted in order to comply with a time constraint.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DeJonge (US 5121325 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA RENEE DOROS whose telephone number is (703)756-1415. The examiner can normally be reached Generally: M-F (8-5) EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights