DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/150,024 filed on 06/05/2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 – 5, 8, 11, 13 and 15 have been amended.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered.
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 – 3, 8, 11 – 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trent et al. (US 11450214 B1) further in view of Estkowski et al. (US 9310809 B2), Wilkins et al. (US 20160065300 A1) and Geng et al. (US 20220301445 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trent teaches a method for managing an air combat mission on a battlespace for a plurality of aircraft, the method comprising: (Trent: Col. 1, lines 38 – 46: “In implementing airborne communication systems, a flight path/orbit is manually generated for a flight path planning system of an aerial vehicle that houses the airborne communication hub. The flight plan includes waypoints for the aerial vehicle to pass through to position the communication hub in desired locations to enable communication links between the communication hub and communication subscriber nodes.”; Col. 3, lines 48 – 50: “FIG. 1A illustrates a communication system 40 that implements embodiments of a communication travel plan generation system. In this example embodiment, a mobile vehicle 50 traverses about travel area 45.”; Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 1: “As illustrated, the communication system 40 is shown as also including mobile vehicle 70. Mobile vehicle 70 in this example embodiment also includes a communication hub 72, a controller 74 and sensors 76a, 76b and 76c.”,
Supplemental Note: As shown in Figure A, the communication system is able to communicate with multiple aircrafts (50 and 70))
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Trent: Fig. 1A
… generating, from the battle plan, a separate mission plan for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, each mission plan including a respective task set for completion by a corresponding aircraft and a respective route to be traversed by the corresponding aircraft, each task set including tasks, which when completed, are designed to achieve one of the one or more mission objectives including achieving the desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints of the mission objective; (Trent: Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 5: “illustrates a communication system 40 that implements embodiments of a communication travel plan generation system. In this example embodiment, a mobile vehicle 50 traverses about travel area 45. Throughout area 45 are located a plurality of spaced communication subscriber hubs 60a-60h. The communication subscriber hubs 60a-60h communicate with the communication hub 52 of the mobile vehicle 50 as the mobile vehicle traverses throughout the travel area 45 during a mission. The communication travel plan generation system of embodiments automatically generates travel waypoints for the mobile vehicle 50 with at least one controller 54. The generation of the travel waypoints is based on the location of the communication subscriber hubs 60a-60g and mission-specific information as described in detail below. In an embodiment, more than one mobile vehicle with a communication hub is used in the communication system 40. As illustrated, the communication system 40 is shown as also including mobile vehicle 70. Mobile vehicle 70 in this example embodiment also includes a communication hub 72, a controller 74 and sensors 76a, 76b and 76c. The communication travel plan generation system of an embodiment is configured to coordinate the paths of both mobile vehicles 50 and 70 in this situation. Moreover, more than two vehicles could be implemented in a similar manner in a communication system.”; Col. 6, lines 42 – 46: “In an embodiment, a mission planner simply enters the location of the communication subscriber nodes, along with the mission-specific information described above such as mission priorities and the types of subscriber communication nodes in use into an existing mission planning system.”,
Supplemental Note: the system generates a travel plan, equivalent to mission plans, for one or more vehicles that has to be completed by these vehicles based on the mission. This included creating waypoints to guide to the vehicles and the mission priorities within the battlespace)
executing each mission plan, including each aircraft traversing the respective route and completing the tasks from the respective task set; (Trent: Col. 4, lines 14 – 19: “Mission control 80 communicates sensed mission-specific information to the mobile vehicles 50 and 70. The sensor generated mission-specific information is used in an embodiment to dynamically change the travel path of one or more of the mobile vehicles 50 or 70 as further discussed in detail below.”; Col. 5, lines 43 – 55: “Once the travel waypoints have been generated, they are output to the mission planning system of the vehicle 50 at step (95). The mission planning system then uses the waypoints to generate a mission plan at step (96). In this example embodiment, the mission plan is to implement at step (97). The vehicle 50 then traverses the travel area 45 and communicates with communication subscriber nodes 60a-60b. In this embodiment, the controller 54 of the vehicle 50 monitors for changes in the mission-specific information (98). If no changes to the mission-specific information is detected at step (98), it is then determined if the mission is complete at step (99). If the mission is complete at step (99), the process ends.”,
Supplemental Note: the aircrafts travel on the route and complete the mission based on the mission-specific information)
… generating a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft (Trent: Col. 5, lines 54 – 63: “If the mission is complete at step (99), the process ends. If the mission is not complete at step (99), the controller 54 continues to monitor for changes in the mission-specific information at step (98). If the controller does detect changes in the information-specific information at (98), a new set of path waypoints are generated at step (93) and the process continues as shown. Hence, this embodiment illustrates a system that dynamically changes the mission plan as the mission-specific information changes.”)
… the revised mission plan including an adjusted route or an adjusted task set of the corresponding mission plan for the selected aircraft,
executing, by the selected aircraft, the revised mission plan, including the selected aircraft traversing the adjusted route or completing the adjusted task set; and (Trent: Col. 5, lines 14 – 15: “FIG. 1B illustrates a travel generation flow diagram 90 of one embodiment.”; Col. 5, lines 55 – 63: “If the mission is not complete at step (99), the controller 54 continues to monitor for changes in the mission-specific information at step (98). If the controller does detect changes in the information-specific information at (98), a new set of path waypoints are generated at step (93) and the process continues as shown. Hence, this embodiment illustrates a system that dynamically changes the mission plan as the mission-specific information changes.”,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure B, after the mission plan is revised (98), the aircrafts are still configured to complete that revised mission (99)).
PNG
media_image2.png
797
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Trent: Fig. 1B
In sum, Trent teaches a method for managing an air combat mission on a battlespace for a plurality of aircraft, the method comprising: generating, from the battle plan, a separate mission plan for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, each mission plan including a respective task set for completion by a corresponding aircraft and a respective route to be traversed by the corresponding aircraft, each task set including tasks, which when completed, are designed to achieve one of the one or more mission objectives including achieving the desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints of the mission objective; executing each mission plan, including each aircraft traversing the respective route and completing the tasks from the respective task set; generating a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft the revised mission plan including an adjusted route or an adjusted task set of the corresponding mission plan for the selected aircraft, executing, by the selected aircraft, the revised mission plan, including the selected aircraft traversing the adjusted route or completing the adjusted task set. Trent however does not teach receiving a battle plan by each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, the battle plan comprising one or more mission objectives, each mission objective containing desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints for implementation by one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft as part of the battle plan; selecting an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions; based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions.
Estkowsi teaches receiving a battle plan by each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, the battle plan comprising one or more mission objectives, each mission objective containing desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints for implementation by one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft as part of the battle plan; (Estkowsi: Col. 1, lines 19 – 20: “Controlling mobile platforms, such as aircraft operating in a defined space, is a task that has both civilian and military applications.”; Col. 7, lines 9 – 17: “FIG. 3 is an illustration of operations 200 for collaboratively generating a pre-flight flight plan in accordance with one embodiment. At 202, a set of flight parameters are received by the collaborative routing system 50. As described above, the flight parameters represent any objective desired to be achieved by the aircraft 12. For example, flight parameters input to the collaborative routing system 50 for an exemplary aircraft 12 may include a departure point, a departure time, an arrival point, an arrival time, an average speed, a maximum altitude, etc.”)
… selecting an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions; (Estkowski: Col. 12, lines 3 – 12: “At 402, the collaborative routing system 50 performs inflight monitoring of the aircraft 12 to identify a hazardous condition. For example, the collaborative routing system 50 may substantially continuously receive information relating to other aircraft operating in the defined airspace from the airspace monitoring and aircraft tracking devices 54, the airborne command and control aircraft 56, and/or the satellites 58. At 404, a warning indication is provided to the operator when a hazardous condition is detected. For example, the warning indication may represent a midair collision.”)
… based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, (Estkowski: Col. 4, lines 30 – 41: “Also when in route the collaborative routing system 50 may continue to monitor the aircraft progress and airspace condition. If changes in airspace condition or aircraft progress preclude satisfying the specified timed route the collaborative routing system 50 may alert the operator and provide suggested re-routes. In the case that the aircraft behavior is not conforming to route the collaborative routing system 50 may query the operator for a reason, request updated reroute criteria, or ask if the operator intends to return to plan. The collaborative routing system 50 may then update routing or provide options according to operator response.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Estkowski with a reasonable expectation of success. Trent and Estkowski both teach aircrafts which are able to perform a mission with the ability of revising their mission plan depending on any hinderances found within the space of performing the mission. Both also teach the ability of managing the missions of multiple aerial vehicles. Trent however is silent on how it controls the missions for multiple vehicles and if the data gathered by its communication nodes are real-time conditions of the battlespace. Estkowski teaches both of these scenarios by stating how missions for two aircrafts can be revised (Estkowski: Fig. 7) and how the collaborative routing system performs in flight monitoring the aircraft to identify any hazardous conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would find these functions of Estkowski’s collaborative routing system to be obvious to try to combine with the flight system of Trent. For example, Trent will now be able to monitor the flight of their aircrafts, gathering airspace and aircraft conditions as they perform the mission while also being able to revise plans of multiple aircrafts if needed. Estkowski teaches a scenario in which it can adjust the flight plan of two aircrafts which have the potential to crash. This scenario can be mitigated for the aircrafts of Trent when combined with Estkowski while increasing the safety of the passengers abord the aircraft and increasing the efficiency of aircraft. Trent in view of Estkowski however still do not teach transmitting, by the selected aircraft via aircraft-to-aircraft communication links using a transceiver of the selected aircraft.
Wilkin teaches transmitting, by the selected aircraft via aircraft-to-aircraft communication links using a transceiver of the selected aircraft, (Wilkins: Paragraph 0040: “The aircraft 20A-C each includes a control module 22A-C, respectively. Each control module 22A-C is configured to control the receipt and transmission of data communication signals through the air. In some implementations, the aircraft of the data communication system 10 receives second data communication signals 54 from and transmits second data communication signals 54 to other aircraft. For example, second data communication signals 54 are transmitted between the second and third aircraft 20B, 20C. The second data communication signals 54 can be defined as data communication signals transmitted between aircraft in flight. The aircraft 20A-C each includes a transceiver (or separate transmitter and receiver) for transmitting and receiving data communication signals. The transceiver (or separate transmitter and receiver) of each aircraft can be communicatively and controllably coupled to the control module of the corresponding aircraft.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Wilkins with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to combine the ability of aircraft-to-aircraft communication as taught by Wilkins with the aircraft system of Trent. Trent teaches the ability of an aircraft system able to generate a flight path for completing a mission. The flight path is created by a mission planner with acquires mission specific information from communication subscriber nodes (Trent: Col. 3, line 47 – Col. 4, line 5). The system is also able to gather detected mission specific information by the aircrafts sensors (Trent: Col. 4, lines 6 – 25). Based on the mission specific information, the mission for the aircraft can be changed dynamically (Trent: Col. 5, lines 44 – 63). For these reasons, having another aircraft which is able to communicate with another aircraft by sending mission specific information can be used to dynamically adjust the mission for the host aircraft. For example, if another aircraft picks up enemy positions from their sensors, this data can be communicated with the aircraft to be used for dynamically adjusting the mission. The aircraft can now process the enemy location and determine whether or not to continue down that path or re-route. This combination allows for additional data sources to gather mission specific information from other aircrafts which in-turn improve the mission planning for all of the connected aircrafts. Trent in view of Wilkins however still do not teach the revised mission plan to each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, wherein the selected aircraft is configured to share the revised mission plan based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, and wherein each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, is configured to revise a corresponding mission plan based on the revised mission plan for the selected aircraft.
Geng teaches the revised mission plan to each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft,
wherein the selected aircraft is configured to share the revised mission plan based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, and
wherein each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, is configured to revise a corresponding mission plan based on the revised mission plan for the selected aircraft (Geng: Paragraph 0039: “The MMS 210 is a subsystem configured to manage missions of the aircraft 204. A mission is a deployment of the aircraft (one or more aircraft) to achieve one or more mission objectives. A mission may be decomposed into maneuvers of the aircraft with optional sensor and/or effector scheduling, and the MMS may execute tasks to manage the aircraft to execute maneuvers with specific parameters and capabilities. The MMS 210 includes subsystems to process sensor data to situational awareness, plan tasks for the aircraft (or multiple aircraft), coordinate with teams to assign tasks, execute assigned tasks. The MMS is also configured to interface with the RMS 208, and in some examples the control station 202. Although the MMS is shown on the aircraft, the MMS may instead be at the control station; or in some examples, the MMS may be distributed between the aircraft and the control station.”; Paragraph 0042: “The subsystems enable the MMS 210 of the aircraft 204 to interface with the system 200, perform situational awareness, plan a mission including a plurality of tasks, coordinate the plurality of tasks and thereby the mission with other aircraft 204, and execute the mission. For example, the MMS may use the interface subsystem 302 to interface with various sensors onboard the aircraft, the RMS 208, the control station 202 and/or other aircraft. The MMS may use the situational awareness subsystem 304 to acquire sensor data and maintain an awareness of the state of the environment in which the aircraft is operating. The MMS may use the mission planning subsystem 306 to plan a mission including or associated with a plurality of tasks, and which may incorporate rules of engagement, tactics and other constraints on operations. The MMS may likewise use the mission planning subsystem to dynamically replan a mission in which changes to the mission are made in real-time or near real-time as the mission is executed. The MMS may use the mission coordination subsystem 308 to coordinate the plurality of tasks of the mission with other aircraft and users, where agreed-upon tasks may then be executed by the MMS using the mission execution subsystem 310.”,
Supplemental Note: the MMS system is located on the aircraft itself and is able to update the mission while also communicating the changes with other aircrafts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Geng with a reasonable expectation of success. Geng teaches the ability of generating a flight plan for multiple aircrafts which can be adjusted based on the real-time data acquired. Geng teaches the mission plan can be sent in communication between multiple aircrafts by the use of the mission planning subsystem provided in each aircraft. Trent teaches the ability to revise a mission plan for a plurality of mobile vehicles as seen in Figure A. The mission control as taught by Trent communicates the mission plan to the different vehicles (Trent: Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 5). One with knowledge in the art would find the ability of Geng to adjust the mission plan for multiple aircrafts by a single aircraft to be simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both Trent and Geng are teaching the ability to update a mission plan for their connected vehicles, thus the teaching of Geng letting the MMS of an aircraft to update a mission for another aircraft is a simple substitution of the mission control as taught by Trent updating a mission plan for multiple vehicles as well.
Regarding claim 2, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein generating each mission plans:
determining mission requirements for subsystems of each aircraft based on the one or more mission objectives to be completed during execution of the mission plan, (Trent: Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 5: “illustrates a communication system 40 that implements embodiments of a communication travel plan generation system. In this example embodiment, a mobile vehicle 50 traverses about travel area 45. Throughout area 45 are located a plurality of spaced communication subscriber hubs 60a-60h. The communication subscriber hubs 60a-60h communicate with the communication hub 52 of the mobile vehicle 50 as the mobile vehicle traverses throughout the travel area 45 during a mission. The communication travel plan generation system of embodiments automatically generates travel waypoints for the mobile vehicle 50 with at least one controller 54. The generation of the travel waypoints is based on the location of the communication subscriber hubs 60a-60g and mission-specific information as described in detail below. In an embodiment, more than one mobile vehicle with a communication hub is used in the communication system 40. As illustrated, the communication system 40 is shown as also including mobile vehicle 70. Mobile vehicle 70 in this example embodiment also includes a communication hub 72, a controller 74 and sensors 76a, 76b and 76c. The communication travel plan generation system of an embodiment is configured to coordinate the paths of both mobile vehicles 50 and 70 in this situation. Moreover, more than two vehicles could be implemented in a similar manner in a communication system.”: Col. 10, lines 1 – 5: “In order to assess the suitability of particular flight paths and waypoints for a mobile relay platform to the requirements of a particular mission, the communication travel plan generation system 200 systematically determines the characteristics of the airborne and surface-based radios at any point in time throughout the entire battle space volume.”,
Supplemental Note: the system generates a mission for one or more vehicles that has to be completed by these vehicles. This included creating waypoints to guide to the vehicles to the mission and the characteristics required for a particular mission)
and based on expected battlespace conditions; and generating the respective task set and the respective route based on the determined mission requirements (Trent: Col. 4, line 6 – 25: “FIG. 1A also illustrates an embodiment with a mission control 80 that is in communication with the mobile vehicles 50 and 70. Mission control 80 in an embodiment, provide mission-specific information to the respective mobile vehicles 50 and 70. Mission control 80 is further in communication with sensors 82a, 82b and 82c. Sensors 82a, 82b and 82c provide mission-specific information in an embodiment to the mission control 80 related to surveillance information. Mission control 80 communicates sensed mission-specific information to the mobile vehicles 50 and 70. The sensor generated mission-specific information is used in an embodiment to dynamically change the travel path of one or more of the mobile vehicles 50 or 70 as further discussed in detail below. The sensors 82a, 82b and 82c may include, but are not limited to, radar sensors, camera sensors, thermal imaging sensors, etc. In one embodiment, sensors 56a, 56b, 56c, 76a, 76b and 76c are implemented within the mobile vehicles 50 and 70 themselves. This embodiment provides a system that allows the mobile vehicle 50 and 70 to dynamically update the travel path autonomously.”; Col. 5, lines 52 – 63: “If no changes to the mission-specific information is detected at step (98), it is then determined if the mission is complete at step (99). If the mission is complete at step (99), the process ends. If the mission is not complete at step (99), the controller 54 continues to monitor for changes in the mission-specific information at step (98). If the controller does detect changes in the information-specific information at (98), a new set of path waypoints are generated at step (93) and the process continues as shown. Hence, this embodiment illustrates a system that dynamically changes the mission plan as the mission-specific information changes.”; Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21: “The geographical simulation and optimization system 242 of the communication travel plan generation system 200 compartmentalizes the volume above the battle space where mission elements are deployed using a 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric grid 260, as shown in FIG. 5. For any given flight path through this volume the communication travel plan generation system 200 can use the radio behavior functions to evaluate the relative characteristics of the connections between the radios on the airborne platform and all communication subscribers at every compartment within the battle space volume through which the orbit passes. This is simply a matter of iterating over all of the individual compartments and evaluating all of the radio functions for the appropriate air and surface radios. This computation allows the communication travel plan generation system 200 to determine the coverage values associated with any prospective orbit for use in the objective function. The iterative evaluation of a series of functions across the entire 3D volume grid 260 is accomplished in one embodiment with the high-performance processing unit 257 computation. The mapping of this algorithm onto high-performance processing unit 257 hardware may be particularly important where integration with real-time, in-mission systems is desirable for continuous re-planning.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
Regarding claim 3, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein generating the revised mission plan comprises: determining revised mission requirements for subsystems of the selected aircraft based on the one or more mission objectives to be completed during execution of the corresponding mission plan, and based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions; and adjusting the task set and the route based on the determined revised mission requirements (Trent: Col. 4, line 6 – 25: “FIG. 1A also illustrates an embodiment with a mission control 80 that is in communication with the mobile vehicles 50 and 70. Mission control 80 in an embodiment, provide mission-specific information to the respective mobile vehicles 50 and 70. Mission control 80 is further in communication with sensors 82a, 82b and 82c. Sensors 82a, 82b and 82c provide mission-specific information in an embodiment to the mission control 80 related to surveillance information. Mission control 80 communicates sensed mission-specific information to the mobile vehicles 50 and 70. The sensor generated mission-specific information is used in an embodiment to dynamically change the travel path of one or more of the mobile vehicles 50 or 70 as further discussed in detail below. The sensors 82a, 82b and 82c may include, but are not limited to, radar sensors, camera sensors, thermal imaging sensors, etc. In one embodiment, sensors 56a, 56b, 56c, 76a, 76b and 76c are implemented within the mobile vehicles 50 and 70 themselves. This embodiment provides a system that allows the mobile vehicle 50 and 70 to dynamically update the travel path autonomously.”; Col. 5, lines 52 – 63: “If no changes to the mission-specific information is detected at step (98), it is then determined if the mission is complete at step (99). If the mission is complete at step (99), the process ends. If the mission is not complete at step (99), the controller 54 continues to monitor for changes in the mission-specific information at step (98). If the controller does detect changes in the information-specific information at (98), a new set of path waypoints are generated at step (93) and the process continues as shown. Hence, this embodiment illustrates a system that dynamically changes the mission plan as the mission-specific information changes.”; Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21: “The geographical simulation and optimization system 242 of the communication travel plan generation system 200 compartmentalizes the volume above the battle space where mission elements are deployed using a 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric grid 260, as shown in FIG. 5. For any given flight path through this volume the communication travel plan generation system 200 can use the radio behavior functions to evaluate the relative characteristics of the connections between the radios on the airborne platform and all communication subscribers at every compartment within the battle space volume through which the orbit passes. This is simply a matter of iterating over all of the individual compartments and evaluating all of the radio functions for the appropriate air and surface radios. This computation allows the communication travel plan generation system 200 to determine the coverage values associated with any prospective orbit for use in the objective function. The iterative evaluation of a series of functions across the entire 3D volume grid 260 is accomplished in one embodiment with the high-performance processing unit 257 computation. The mapping of this algorithm onto high-performance processing unit 257 hardware may be particularly important where integration with real-time, in-mission systems is desirable for continuous re-planning.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing. This applied across all the vehicles using this system).
Regarding claim 8, Trent, as modified, teaches further comprising; receiving the observed real-time battlespace conditions from one or more ground-based radar devices, one or more airborne devices, one or more ground-based sensors, or one or more airborne sensors arranged to monitor and track one or more locations on the battlespace, positions of the one or more aircraft, and positions of one or more enemy aircraft on the battlespace (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21: “The geographical simulation and optimization system 242 of the communication travel plan generation system 200 compartmentalizes the volume above the battle space where mission elements are deployed using a 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric grid 260, as shown in FIG. 5. For any given flight path through this volume the communication travel plan generation system 200 can use the radio behavior functions to evaluate the relative characteristics of the connections between the radios on the airborne platform and all communication subscribers at every compartment within the battle space volume through which the orbit passes. This is simply a matter of iterating over all of the individual compartments and evaluating all of the radio functions for the appropriate air and surface radios. This computation allows the communication travel plan generation system 200 to determine the coverage values associated with any prospective orbit for use in the objective function. The iterative evaluation of a series of functions across the entire 3D volume grid 260 is accomplished in one embodiment with the high-performance processing unit 257 computation. The mapping of this algorithm onto high-performance processing unit 257 hardware may be particularly important where integration with real-time, in-mission systems is desirable for continuous re-planning.”; Col. 6, lines 17 – 22: “Other dynamic mission-specific information may include terrain, weather effects, antenna orientation during flight maneuvers, surveillance information and constraints based on known or suspected positions of enemy elements are also capable of changing rapidly and effecting mission performance.”
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing. This also includes position of enemy elements such as enemy aircrafts).
Regarding claim 11, Trent teaches a system for managing an air combat mission on a battlespace for a plurality of aircraft, the system comprising: (Trent: Col. 1, lines 38 – 46; Col. 3, lines 48 – 50; Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 1,
Supplemental Note: As shown in Figure A, the communication system is able to communicate with multiple aircrafts (50 and 70))
one or more processors, each associated with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein upon execution of the executable instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: (Trent: Col. 2, lines 20 – 35)
… generate, from the battle plan, a separate mission plan for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, each mission plan including a respective task set for completion by a corresponding aircraft and a respective route to be traversed by the corresponding aircraft, each task set including tasks, which when completed, are designed to achieve one of the one or more mission objectives including achieving the desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints of the mission objective; (Trent: Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 5; Col. 6, lines 42 – 46,
Supplemental Note: the system generates a travel plan, equivalent to mission plans, for one or more vehicles that has to be completed by these vehicles based on the mission. This included creating waypoints to guide to the vehicles and the mission priorities within the battlespace)
execute each mission plan, including each aircraft being configured to traverse the respective route and complete the tasks from the respective task set; (Trent: Col. 4, lines 14 – 19; Col. 5, lines 43 – 55,
Supplemental Note: the aircrafts travel on the route and complete the mission based on the mission-specific information)
… generate a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft (Trent: Col. 5, lines 54 – 63)
… the revised mission plan including an adjusted route or an adjusted task set of the corresponding mission plan for the selected aircraft;
execute, by the selected aircraft, the revised mission plan, including the selected aircraft traversing the adjusted route or completing the adjusted task set; and (Trent: Col. 5, lines 14 – 15; Col. 5, lines 55 – 63,
Supplemental Note: as shown in Figure B, after the mission plan is revised (98), the aircrafts are still configured to complete that revised mission (99)).
In sum, Trent teaches a system for managing an air combat mission on a battlespace for a plurality of aircraft, the system comprising: one or more processors, each associated with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, wherein upon execution of the executable instructions, the one or more processors are configured to: generate, from the battle plan, a separate mission plan for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, each mission plan including a respective task set for completion by a corresponding aircraft and a respective route to be traversed by the corresponding aircraft, each task set including tasks, which when completed, are designed to achieve one of the one or more mission objectives including achieving the desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints of the mission objective; execute each mission plan, including each aircraft being configured to traverse the respective route and complete the tasks from the respective task set; generate a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft the revised mission plan including an adjusted route or an adjusted task set of the corresponding mission plan for the selected aircraft; execute, by the selected aircraft, the revised mission plan, including the selected aircraft traversing the adjusted route or completing the adjusted task set. Trent however does not teach to receive a battle plan by each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, the battle plan comprising one or more mission objectives, each mission objective containing desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints for implementation by one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft as part of the battle plan; select an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions; based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions.
Estkowsi teaches receive a battle plan by each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, the battle plan comprising one or more mission objectives, each mission objective containing desired effects on the battlespace, guidance, and aircraft constraints for implementation by one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft as part of the battle plan; (Estkowsi: Col. 1, lines 19 – 20; Col. 7, lines 9 – 17)
… select an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions; (Estkowski: Col. 12, lines 3 – 12)
… based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, (Estkowski: Col. 4, lines 30 – 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Estkowski with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Trent in view of Estkowski however do not teach to transmit the revised mission plan to each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, via aircraft-to-aircraft communication links using a transceiver of the selected aircraft.
Wilkins teaches transmit the revised mission plan to each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, via aircraft-to-aircraft communication links using a transceiver of the selected aircraft, (Wilkins: Paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Wilkins with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Trent in view of Wilkins however still do not teach wherein the selected aircraft is configured to share the revised mission plan based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, and wherein each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, is configured to revise a corresponding mission plan based on the revised mission plan for the selected aircraft.
Geng teaches wherein the selected aircraft is configured to share the revised mission plan based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions, and
wherein each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, other than the selected aircraft, is configured to revise a corresponding mission plan based on the revised mission plan for the selected aircraft (Geng: Paragraph 0039; Paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent with the teachings of Geng with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both state the same functional language and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 12, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine mission requirements for subsystems of each aircraft based on the one or more mission objectives to be completed during execution of the mission plan, (Trent: Col. 3, line 48 – Col. 4, line 5; Col. 10, lines 1 – 5,
Supplemental Note: the system generates a mission for one or more vehicles that has to be completed by these vehicles. This included creating waypoints to guide to the vehicles to the mission and the characteristics required for a particular mission)
and based on expected battlespace conditions; and generate the task sets and the route based on the determined mission requirements (Trent: Col. 4, line 6 – 25; Col. 5, lines 52 – 63; Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
Regarding claim 13, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein, to generate the revised mission plan, the one or more processors are configured to: determine revised mission requirements for subsystems of the selected aircraft based on the one or more mission objectives to be completed during execution of the corresponding mission plan, and based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions; and adjust the task set and the route based on the determined revised mission requirements (Trent: Col. 4, line 6 – 25; Col. 5, lines 52 – 63; Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing. This applied across all the vehicles using this system).
Regarding claim 18, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive the observed real-time battlespace conditions from one or more ground-based radar devices, one or more airborne devices, one or more ground-based sensors, or one or more airborne sensors arranged to monitor and track one or more locations on the battlespace, positions of the one or more aircraft, and positions of one or more enemy aircraft on the battlespace (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21; Col. 6, lines 17 – 22,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing. This also includes position of enemy elements such as enemy aircrafts).
Claims 4 – 7 and 14 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trent et al. (US 11450214 B1) in view of Estkowski et al. (US 9310809 B2), Wilkins et al. (US 20160065300 A1) and Geng et al. (US 20220301445 A1), further in view of O’Connor et al. (US 20120143406 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Trent, as modified, teaches further comprising; displaying instructions for executing each mission plan or each revised mission plan (Trent: Claim 20: “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processing devices, further cause the one or more processing devices to: extract information including one or more of mission elements, communications/connectivity requirements, aircraft capabilities and constraints from the plan and using the extracted information when modeling geographic space and time.”; Claim 23: “An aircraft comprising: a means of propulsion; one or more processing devices configured to control the means of propulsion; a data storage medium coupled to the one or more processing devices, the data storage medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to:”,
Supplemental Note: the aircraft has a processor which houses the instructions of the mission).
In sum, Trent teaches further comprising displaying instructions for executing each mission plan or each revised mission plan. Trent however does not teach on an onboard computer display of a corresponding aircraft.
O’Connor teaches on an onboard computer display of a corresponding aircraft (O’Connor: Paragraph 0032: “The navigation system 20 comprises several units that combine available navigation data to determine the best navigation solution. Navigation data is presented to the pilot on multiple displays in the aircraft 100. Main navigation data is presented on a primary flight display PFD and secondary source of flight data is presented to the pilot on a secondary flight display SFD. These instruments are kept independent of each other, both in terms of sources of data and supporting systems such as power supplies. A head-up display HUD can be optionally installed as well. The structure of the navigation system 20 will be described in detail in relation with figures depicting it.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Trent and O’Connor both teach systems that utilize an aircraft to perform some procedure, in the teachings of Trent, mission objectives and routes are sent to the aircraft without mentioning the pilot. One or ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the pilot’s point of view of receiving set objectives in an aircraft display as they are operating the aircraft. This allows the pilot to receive all the mission information in a display that they are able to references as they are operating. For example, Trent teaches the ability to update the mission based on real-time collected data, the addition of O’Connor’s teaching of a pilot’s display would be obvious to try as any changes to the mission can be changed right on the display of the pilot, thus increasing the efficiency of the system of Trent.
Regarding claim 5, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein each mission objective further contains one or more pre-loaded template mission plans for execution by an aircraft, and wherein generating the mission plans comprises using the pre-loaded template mission plans to generate the mission plans, the pre-loaded template mission plans comprising pre-made task sets and routes being representative of a pre-determined decision making or task prioritization process.
O’Connor teaches wherein each mission objective further contains one or more pre-loaded template mission plans for execution by a respective aircraft, and
wherein generating the mission plans comprises using the pre-loaded template mission plans to generate the mission plans, the pre-loaded template mission plans comprising pre-made task sets and routes being representative of a pre-determined decision making or task prioritization process (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056: “Tactical navigation data is planned prior to the mission, and taken to the aircraft on a removable memory module. This is inserted into a mission data recorder MDR, which reads the data and passes it to the open systems mission computer OSMC for the creation of the appropriate commands for the display of the route on the multi-function displays MFD, head-up display HUD, head-up display repeater HUDR or primary flight display PFD, as selected by the pilot. Furthermore, the data from the navigation sensors are provided to the open systems mission computer OSMC via the I/O bus 102 to determine the aircraft position along the planned route. This information is used to update the display of the tactical navigation route on the selected display. If the route is displayed on the multi-function display MFD, the pilot has the option to select the route to be overlaid on a digital map of the area.”,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The pre-loaded template of this information can be used on various displays to be displayed on selected by the pilot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. As discussed in claim 1, Trent and O’Connor both teach systems that utilize an aircraft to perform some procedure, in the teachings of Trent, mission objectives and routes are sent to the aircraft without mentioning the pilot. One or ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the pilot’s point of view of receiving set objectives in an aircraft display as they are operating the aircraft. This allows the pilot to receive all the mission information in a display that they are able to references as they are operating. For example, Trent teaches the ability to update the mission based on real-time collected data, the addition of O’Connor’s teaching of a pilot’s display would be obvious to try as any changes to the mission can be changed right on the display of the pilot, thus increasing the efficiency of the system of Trent. Furthering this example, Trent teaches the ability of the pilot to be able to select on which of the various displays to use for viewing different mission information. For example, a pilot using a map template on the selected MFD screen has also the ability to overlay a map route on top of it. This allows the pilot to view the different mission information in a manner that is most convenient for them, especially in a battle space where enemy aircrafts reside, the pilot’s viewpoint should be customizable by them for optimal viewing. For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement O’Connor’s teaching for the aircrafts used in Trent’s system.
Regarding claim 6, Trent, as modified, teaches based on expected battlespace conditions to generate the mission plans (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21: “The geographical simulation and optimization system 242 of the communication travel plan generation system 200 compartmentalizes the volume above the battle space where mission elements are deployed using a 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric grid 260, as shown in FIG. 5. For any given flight path through this volume the communication travel plan generation system 200 can use the radio behavior functions to evaluate the relative characteristics of the connections between the radios on the airborne platform and all communication subscribers at every compartment within the battle space volume through which the orbit passes. This is simply a matter of iterating over all of the individual compartments and evaluating all of the radio functions for the appropriate air and surface radios. This computation allows the communication travel plan generation system 200 to determine the coverage values associated with any prospective orbit for use in the objective function. The iterative evaluation of a series of functions across the entire 3D volume grid 260 is accomplished in one embodiment with the high-performance processing unit 257 computation. The mapping of this algorithm onto high-performance processing unit 257 hardware may be particularly important where integration with real-time, in-mission systems is desirable for continuous re-planning.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
In sum, Trent teaches generating mission plans based on expected battlespace conditions to generate the mission plans. Trent however does not teach wherein generating the mission plans further comprises altering the pre-loaded template mission plan.
O’Connor teaches wherein generating the mission plans further comprises altering the pre-loaded template mission plan (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056: “Tactical navigation data is planned prior to the mission, and taken to the aircraft on a removable memory module. This is inserted into a mission data recorder MDR, which reads the data and passes it to the open systems mission computer OSMC for the creation of the appropriate commands for the display of the route on the multi-function displays MFD, head-up display HUD, head-up display repeater HUDR or primary flight display PFD, as selected by the pilot. Furthermore, the data from the navigation sensors are provided to the open systems mission computer OSMC via the I/O bus 102 to determine the aircraft position along the planned route. This information is used to update the display of the tactical navigation route on the selected display. If the route is displayed on the multi-function display MFD, the pilot has the option to select the route to be overlaid on a digital map of the area.”,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The pre-loaded template of this information can be used on various displays to be displayed on selected by the pilot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. As discussed in claim 1, Trent and O’Connor both teach systems that utilize an aircraft to perform some procedure, in the teachings of Trent, mission objectives and routes are sent to the aircraft without mentioning the pilot. One or ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the pilot’s point of view of receiving set objectives in an aircraft display as they are operating the aircraft. This allows the pilot to receive all the mission information in a display that they are able to references as they are operating. For example, Trent teaches the ability to update the mission based on real-time collected data, the addition of O’Connor’s teaching of a pilot’s display would be obvious to try as any changes to the mission can be changed right on the display of the pilot, thus increasing the efficiency of the system of Trent.
Regarding claim 7, Trent, as modified, teaches based on observed actual battlespace conditions, including environmental conditions, obstacles, or enemy combatant locations or activities (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21: “The geographical simulation and optimization system 242 of the communication travel plan generation system 200 compartmentalizes the volume above the battle space where mission elements are deployed using a 3-dimensional (3D) volumetric grid 260, as shown in FIG. 5. For any given flight path through this volume the communication travel plan generation system 200 can use the radio behavior functions to evaluate the relative characteristics of the connections between the radios on the airborne platform and all communication subscribers at every compartment within the battle space volume through which the orbit passes. This is simply a matter of iterating over all of the individual compartments and evaluating all of the radio functions for the appropriate air and surface radios. This computation allows the communication travel plan generation system 200 to determine the coverage values associated with any prospective orbit for use in the objective function. The iterative evaluation of a series of functions across the entire 3D volume grid 260 is accomplished in one embodiment with the high-performance processing unit 257 computation. The mapping of this algorithm onto high-performance processing unit 257 hardware may be particularly important where integration with real-time, in-mission systems is desirable for continuous re-planning.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
In sum, Trent teaches altering a mission plan based on observed actual battlespace conditions, including environmental conditions, obstacles, or enemy combatant locations or activities. Trent however does not teach wherein altering the pre-loaded template mission plan includes altering the pre-loaded template mission plan.
O’Connor teaches wherein altering the pre-loaded template mission plan includes altering the pre-loaded template mission plan (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056: “Tactical navigation data is planned prior to the mission, and taken to the aircraft on a removable memory module. This is inserted into a mission data recorder MDR, which reads the data and passes it to the open systems mission computer OSMC for the creation of the appropriate commands for the display of the route on the multi-function displays MFD, head-up display HUD, head-up display repeater HUDR or primary flight display PFD, as selected by the pilot. Furthermore, the data from the navigation sensors are provided to the open systems mission computer OSMC via the I/O bus 102 to determine the aircraft position along the planned route. This information is used to update the display of the tactical navigation route on the selected display. If the route is displayed on the multi-function display MFD, the pilot has the option to select the route to be overlaid on a digital map of the area.”,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The mission plan on this displays is altered in combination with the teachings of Trent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. As discussed in claim 1, Trent and O’Connor both teach systems that utilize an aircraft to perform some procedure, in the teachings of Trent, mission objectives and routes are sent to the aircraft without mentioning the pilot. One or ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the pilot’s point of view of receiving set objectives in an aircraft display as they are operating the aircraft. This allows the pilot to receive all the mission information in a display that they are able to references as they are operating. For example, Trent teaches the ability to update the mission based on real-time collected data, the addition of O’Connor’s teaching of a pilot’s display would be obvious to try as any changes to the mission can be changed right on the display of the pilot, thus increasing the efficiency of the system of Trent.
Regarding claim 14, Trent, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to display instructions for executing each mission plan
or each revised mission plan (Trent: Claim 20; Claim 23,
Supplemental Note: the aircraft has a processor which houses the instructions of the mission).
In sum, Trent teaches wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute each mission plan or each revised mission plan. Trent however does not teach whereas the processor is configured to display these instructions on an onboard computer display of a corresponding aircraft.
O’Connor teaches on an onboard computer display of a corresponding aircraft (O’Connor: Paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 4 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 15, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein each mission objective further contains one or more pre-loaded template mission plans for execution by a respective aircraft, and wherein the one or more processors is further configured to use the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans to generate the mission plans, the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans comprising pre-made task sets and routes being representative of a pre-determined decision making or task prioritization process.
O’Connor teaches wherein each mission objective further contains one or more pre-loaded template mission plans for execution by a respective aircraft, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to use the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans to generate the mission plans, the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans comprising pre-made task sets and routes being representative of a pre-determined decision making or task prioritization process (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The pre-loaded template of this information can be used on various displays to be displayed on selected by the pilot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 5 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 16, Trent, as modified, teaches based on expected battlespace conditions to generate the mission plans (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
In sum, Trent teaches generating mission plans based on expected battlespace conditions to generate the mission plans. Trent however does not teach wherein generating the mission plans further comprises altering the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans.
O’Connor teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to alter the one or more pre-loaded template mission plans (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The pre-loaded template of this information can be used on various displays to be displayed on selected by the pilot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 6 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 17, Trent, as modified, teaches based on observed actual battlespace conditions, including environmental conditions, obstacles, or enemy combatant locations or activities (Trent: Col. 10, line 65 – Col. 11, line 21,
Supplemental Note: based on the geographic information that is being processed in real-time, the routes and mission requirements are also changing).
In sum, Trent teaches altering a mission plan based on observed actual battlespace conditions, including environmental conditions, obstacles, or enemy combatant locations or activities. Trent however does not teach wherein altering the pre-loaded template mission plan includes altering the pre-loaded template mission plan.
O’Connor teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to alter the pre-loaded template mission plan (O’Connor: Paragraph 0054 – 0056,
Supplemental Note: the multiple displays are used to display the mission information which is predetermined. The mission plan on this displays is altered in combination with the teachings of Trent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 7 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trent et al. (US 11450214 B1) in view of Estkowski et al. (US 9310809 B2), Wilkins et al. (US 20160065300 A1) and Geng et al. (US 20220301445 A1), further in view of Young et al. (US 8843303 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein generating the mission plan for each of the aircraft includes generating a plurality of mission plan options from which a pilot of a corresponding aircraft is able to select to execute.
Young teaches wherein generating the mission plan for each of the aircraft includes generating a plurality of mission plan options from which a pilot of a corresponding aircraft is able to select to execute (Young: Col. 6, lines 34 – 44: “Original route 120 has been planned pre-mission based on available information at the time of planning. Route 120 is planned to keep a risk level low for aircraft 110 by remaining clear of planned threat 170. As aircraft 110 approaches deviation point 150, an un-planned threat 140 emerges causing an unplanned level of risk for aircraft should aircraft 110 remain on original route 120. Embodiments of the risk aware contingency flight re-planner may assist a decision maker (here the pilot of aircraft 110) by offering alternate routes 122 and 124 for aircraft 110 to remain clear of both planned threat 170 and unplanned threat 140.”; Col. 6, line 59 – Col. 7, line 11: “Output from mission computer 230 may be in a format recognizable by current avionics devices. Such devices may accept data in a format similar to an ARINC standard of avionics data. However, should a specific Flight Management System (FMS) require a specific input, the risk aware contingency flight re-planner may further include a FMS interface 220 to alter the output to conform to the specific input. Multi-Function Display (MFD) 210 may present details to the decision maker of alternate risk-aware re-routes. Contemplated herein, the decision maker may preferably be onboard the aircraft (ship, vehicle, etc.). Also contemplated herein, the decision maker may be physically located offboard the aircraft. For example, one decision maker may be the single-seat pilot onboard the aircraft. Additionally, in a multi seat configured aircraft, a mission commander or Captain may be the decision maker while not necessarily located within the cockpit of an aircraft and in manipulation of the controls. Additionally, an offboard decision maker may be in control of the vehicle via data link and able to select a re-route offered by the risk aware system.”,
Supplemental Note: the mission is sent to the pilot in which they may be a decision maker that can decide about replanning from the current mission, in-turn giving the pilot the options to select an alternate mission plan from the original).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Trent teaches the ability to implement a mission onto an aircraft where it monitors the battlespace in real-time to gather information for adjusting any of the mission factors. One with knowledge in the art would also find it obvious to implement Young’s teaching of allowing the pilot as a decision maker in adjusting any of the mission factors, for example, a route to take. Trent teaches sensors around the aircraft and mobile communication nodes that are gathering mission information, however the ability to allow the pilot to also be a decision maker is obvious to try as, for example, if there is a reading of an obstacle that the sensors are not able to capture but the pilot can view an obstacle, the pilot has the control to re-route the aircraft. The pilots of the aircraft are the ones physically traveling to the battle space with enemies, allowing the pilot to be a decision maker in terms of the mission gives more control to the pilot to operate in a manner that is safe for them if they feel the current mission plan is not. This increases the safety of the aircraft and the pilot as well as the pilot is given more authority over the mission.
Regarding claim 10, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein routes, and task sets, of the plurality of mission plan options are editable by the pilot.
Young teaches of the plurality of mission plan options are editable by the pilot (Young: Col. 6, lines 34 – 44: “Original route 120 has been planned pre-mission based on available information at the time of planning. Route 120 is planned to keep a risk level low for aircraft 110 by remaining clear of planned threat 170. As aircraft 110 approaches deviation point 150, an un-planned threat 140 emerges causing an unplanned level of risk for aircraft should aircraft 110 remain on original route 120. Embodiments of the risk aware contingency flight re-planner may assist a decision maker (here the pilot of aircraft 110) by offering alternate routes 122 and 124 for aircraft 110 to remain clear of both planned threat 170 and unplanned threat 140.”; Col. 6, line 59 – Col. 7, line 11: “Output from mission computer 230 may be in a format recognizable by current avionics devices. Such devices may accept data in a format similar to an ARINC standard of avionics data. However, should a specific Flight Management System (FMS) require a specific input, the risk aware contingency flight re-planner may further include a FMS interface 220 to alter the output to conform to the specific input. Multi-Function Display (MFD) 210 may present details to the decision maker of alternate risk-aware re-routes. Contemplated herein, the decision maker may preferably be onboard the aircraft (ship, vehicle, etc.). Also contemplated herein, the decision maker may be physically located offboard the aircraft. For example, one decision maker may be the single-seat pilot onboard the aircraft. Additionally, in a multi seat configured aircraft, a mission commander or Captain may be the decision maker while not necessarily located within the cockpit of an aircraft and in manipulation of the controls. Additionally, an offboard decision maker may be in control of the vehicle via data link and able to select a re-route offered by the risk aware system.”,
Supplemental Note: the mission is sent to the pilot in which they may be a decision maker that can decide about replanning from the current mission, in-turn giving the pilot the options to select an alternate mission plan from the original).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. As discussed for claim 9, Trent teaches the ability to implement a mission onto an aircraft where it monitors the battlespace in real-time to gather information for adjusting any of the mission factors. One with knowledge in the art would also find it obvious to implement Young’s teaching of allowing the pilot as a decision maker in adjusting any of the mission factors, for example, a route to take. Trent teaches sensors around the aircraft and mobile communication nodes that are gathering mission information, however the ability to allow the pilot to also be a decision maker is obvious to try as, for example, if there is a reading of an obstacle that the sensors are not able to capture but the pilot can view an obstacle, the pilot has the control to re-route the aircraft. The pilots of the aircraft are the ones physically traveling to the battle space with enemies, allowing the pilot to be a decision maker in terms of the mission gives more control to the pilot to operate in a manner that is safe for them if they feel the current mission plan is not. This increases the safety of the aircraft and the pilot as well as the pilot is given more authority over the mission.
Regarding claim 19, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein the one or more processors is further configured to generate a plurality of mission plan options from which a pilot of a corresponding aircraft is able to select to execute.
Young teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate a plurality of mission plan options from which a pilot of a corresponding aircraft is able to select to execute (Young: Col. 6, lines 34 – 44; Col. 6, line 59 – Col. 7, line 11,
Supplemental Note: the mission is sent to the pilot in which they may be a decision maker that can decide about replanning from the current mission, in-turn giving the pilot the options to select an alternate mission plan from the original).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 9 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 20, Trent, as modified, does not teach wherein routes, and task sets, of the plurality of mission plan options are editable by the pilot.
Young teaches of the plurality of mission plan options are editable by the pilot (Young: Col. 6, lines 34 – 44; Col. 6, line 59 – Col. 7, line 11,
Supplemental Note: the mission is sent to the pilot in which they may be a decision maker that can decide about replanning from the current mission, in-turn giving the pilot the options to select an alternate mission plan from the original).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Trent. Please refer to the claim rejection of claim 10 as both claims state the same functional language thus rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on TRENT, BAILEY, WILKINS, and GENG of the REMARKS, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art claim rejections of claims 1 – 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant states regarding the claim amendments of claims 1 and 11 stating “selecting an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions;” and “generating a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions” are not taught by the previously used prior art of Trent in view of Bailey, Wilkin and Geng. Regarding the claim limitation of “selecting an aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on observed real-time battlespace conditions;” and “based on the observed real-time battlespace conditions”, Examiner agrees are not taught by the previously used prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Estkowski et al. (US 9310809 B2). Regarding the claim limitation of “generating a revised mission plan for the selected aircraft”, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior of Trent does not teach this limitation. Trent states the continuous monitoring for changes with the mission-specific information and if a change is detected, a new set of waypoints are created for the aircraft (Trent: Col. 5, lines 54 – 63). This citation clearly teaches the claimed limitation as the mission plan, such as waypoints, are adjusted and thus the mission plan is revised for that selected aircraft. Please see section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Claim 4 – 7, 9 and 10 dependent on independent claim 1 while claims 14 – 17, 19 and 20 depend on independent claim 11, which are all rejected per their dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights