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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/20/2026 is being entered. Claims 1 and 16 are amended. Claims 6 and 14 are canceled. Claims 21-22 are previously presented. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-22 are pending, and rejected as detailed below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Amendment to claims 1 and 16 are entered. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. §101 claim rejection for claims 1 and 16 have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections
Amendment to claims 1 and 16 are entered. Therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) claim rejection for claims 1 and 16 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Keshmiri fails to disclose "generating a modified flight path including a viable 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle to avoid contact with the at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle." In contrast, Keshmiri identifies references points in a modified flight path that guides the movement of the UAV along and through the reference points. The turn(s) in Keshmiri, including a 1800 turn are implemented to guide the aircraft through the reference points along the flight path, not avoid contact with the reference points. Claim 1 recites generating the modified flight path including a viable 1800 to avoid contact with the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle. Applicant respectfully submits that Piradi and Kearney-Fischer fail to remedy the deficiencies of Keshmiri. Since Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Keshmiri either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the recitations of claim 1 and there is no disclosure in Piradi, Kearney-Fischer or Keshmiri that provides a motivation to combine the teachings in the references to recite the subject matter claimed by claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and not persuasive. Examiner wants to point out that the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Keshmiri teaches “generating a modified flight path including a viable 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle to avoid contact with the at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle.”. More specifically, as shown within the 35 U.S.C. §103 claim rejection, Piradi teaches “generating a modified flight path including obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the modified flight path of Piradi with the 180 degree turn of Keshmiri to avoid collision or to turn around the aircraft for any other reasons. Furthermore, All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant also argues that Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Keshmiri either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all of the recitations of independent claim 16 and there is no disclosure in Piradi, Kearney-Fischer or Keshmiri that provides a motivation to combine the teachings in the references to recite the subject matter claimed by claim 16. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 16.
Applicant’s arguments, as amended herein, with respect to the rejections of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and not persuasive in regards to aforementioned examiner response of the claim 1.
Applicant also argues Claims 2-5, 7-11 and 15 depend from amended independent claim 1 and claims 17-20 depend from amended independent claim 16. Claims 2-5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 and are allowable as depending from allowable base claims. These claims are also allowable for their own recited features, which in combination with those recited in the independent claims are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 is therefore respectfully requested.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 2-5, 7-11, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and not persuasive because the independent claims 1 and 16 are rejected based on the combination of reference Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Keshmiri.
Applicant also argues Claims 12-13 depend from amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claim 1 has been distinguished over Piradi, Kearney-Fischer and Keshmiri. Applicant respectfully submits that one or more of Bazawada and Estkowski fail to remedy the deficiencies of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer and Keshmiri. Accordingly claims 12-13 are allowable based on their dependency from an allowable independent claim, as well as for subject matter separately recited therein and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 12-13 is respectfully requested.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and not persuasive because the independent claim 1 are rejected based on the combination of reference Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Keshmiri.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5, 7-11, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piradi (US 20210097869 A1), and further in view of Kearney-Fischer (US 20240119849 A1) and KESHMIRI (US 20240046803 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Piradi teaches (Currently Amended) A system (Piradi, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates generally to flight navigation path determination for an aircraft, and more particularly to flight navigation path determination that involves identifying and avoiding elevated obstacles in the underlying terrain.”) comprising:
at least one geospatial sensor of an aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0027; “aircraft sensor measurements, such as measurements from the aircraft's global positioning system (GPS), inertial navigation system (INS), and radio navigation.”);
an onboard database configured to store terrain data (Piradi, at least one para. 0066; “The terrain information 300 may be stored and provided by the terrain database 110 in the system 100.”);
an onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0046; “the FMS 102 may be controlled through an interface, such as a Control Display Unit (CDU) that incorporates a visual display interface and input interface.”);
a source of current flight path of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0027; “To enable navigation of a flight plan by an aircraft, the aircraft's navigation system may include a flight management system (FMS)”); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one geospatial sensor, the onboard database, and the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0058; “The processor 202 may perform operations, including processing data received from the other components within the FMS 102 and data obtained from external sources, such as the performance database 104, the navigation database 106, the weather forecasting system 108, and the terrain database 110.”), the controller being configured to:
receive a current flight path of the aircraft from the source of current flight path of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “the FMS may utilize aircraft sensor measurements and terrain information to continuously monitor for elevated terrain located in the aircraft's current flight path”),
receive current aircraft location data from the at least one geospatial sensor (Piradi, at least one para. 0027; “Managing the flight plan may involve using aircraft sensor measurements, such as measurements from the aircraft's global positioning system (GPS), inertial navigation system (INS), and radio navigation, to determine the aircraft's position in order to help guide the aircraft along the flight plan.”),
retrieve terrain data from the onboard database based on the current aircraft location data (Piradi, at least one para. 0066; “the FMS 102 may access the terrain information 300 stored in the terrain database 110 to generate and optimize the flight plan 112 for an aircraft. In some examples, the FMS 102 may use the terrain information 300 when initially developing the flight plan 112. Alternatively, the FMS 102 may monitor and use the terrain information 300 during navigation of the flight plan 112 to identify potential obstacles that may arise due to real-time conditions.”),
the terrain data including a first terrain obstacle and a second terrain obstacle (Piradi, at least one para. 0031; “The terrain information may specify the location and elevation of elevated obstacles, such as the elevations of hills, mountains, and other elevated terrain.”, wherein the term obstacles indicates there are more than one obstacles) in close proximity to the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0067; “The obstacle data may indicate locations and elevations for different obstacles, such as elevated terrain that could potentially interfere with aircraft navigation. Many of the obstacles may have locations near an airport since aircrafts descend and land at airports.”),
determine whether the current flight path of the aircraft leads to a no turn situation with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “For instance, high winds, changes in the destination airport or other changes in the current flight path, and other situations can increase the likelihood of one or more elevated obstacles (e.g., elevated terrain) interfering with the current flight path of the aircraft. As such, the FMS may detect such a situation and responsively modify the flight path to achieve a safe course that avoids the terrain.”), the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement a 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle without contact with at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle if the aircraft remains on the current flight path, and
based on a determination that the current flight path of the aircraft leads to the no turn situation if the aircraft remains on the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “As such, the FMS may detect such a situation and responsively modify the flight path to achieve a safe course that avoids the terrain.”):
generate a modified flight path including (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “For instance, the FMS may detect an upcoming potential obstacle in the terrain and adjust one or more waypoints to cause the flight path to now avoid the obstacle (e.g., circumvent or fly over the obstacle). In some examples, the FMS may be configured to automatically adjust the flight path such the revised flight path avoids the obstacle. For instance, the FMS may develop a revised flight path that incorporates modifications to avoid potential terrain interference while still accommodating the target destination and abilities of the aircraft.”) based on the minimum turn radius of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0085; “the FMS 102 may select modifications to the initial flight path based on one or more of an engine type of the aircraft or capabilities of the aircraft, fuel available, and weather conditions of nearby areas.”, wherein a minimum turn radius of the aircraft can be seen as capabilities of the aircraft and 180 degree turn is inherently present within the aircraft of Piradi), and
display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a first notification associated with implementation (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”) of the modified flight path in accordance with the single viable 1800 turn with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0040; “The FMS may also adjust (or propose adjusting) the flight path vertically such that the aircraft navigates at a different altitude that avoids the potential obstacles”).
Piradi does not explicitly teach the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement a 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle without contact with at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle if the aircraft remains on the current flight path, and
the single viable 1800 turn
However, Kearney-Fischer, in the same field of endeavor (Kearney-Fischer, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates generally to vehicle collision or obstacle avoidance systems. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to collision or obstacle avoidance systems for autonomous and remote controlled aircraft.”) teaches the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement if the aircraft remains on the current flight path (Kearney-Fischer, at least one para. 0043; “FIG. 2E illustrates fifth flight scenario 200E, where the alternate flight path takes into account both the ground obstacle 210 and the one or more contextual obstacles 211, and the detour 209 is determined to avoid both. To avoid both obstacles, as described above, the collision avoidance system is not only receiving obstacle tracking data regarding the obstacles along the first flight path 202, it is constantly receiving obstacle tracking data for the one or more contextual obstacles as well. “, wherein, it is inherent that the flight path 209 is calculated because aircraft 204 is not able to go between or turn around the obstacle 210 and 211), and
the single viable 1800 turn
The combination of Piradi and Kearney-Fischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as an aircraft avoiding obstacles that exist within the initial flight path as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the current flight path of Piradi with teaching of Kearney-Fischer. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the aircraft minimize the collision probability in line with the FAA rules and regulation (Kearney-Fischer; 0043-0044).
The combination of Piradi and Kearney-Fischer does not explicitly teach the single viable 1800 turn and a 1800 turn
However, KESHMIRI, in the same field of endeavor (KESHMIRI, at least one para. 0008; “One or more embodiments described herein relate to a UAV having a novel flight control system implemented thereon. For example, in one or more implementations, a system may identify a desired flight path between a current location of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (e.g., a fixed-wing UAV) and a destination. In one or more implementations, the system modifies a trajectory or flyable path of the UAV based on a difference between a current trajectory of the UAV and a composite trajectory based on locations of reference points relative to a current location of the UAV.”) teaches the single viable 1800 turn and a 1800 turn (KESHMIRI, at least one para. 0081; “FIG. 3B shows an example flight path 300b after the UAV 302 has passed the first two reference points 306a-b and identified an updated set of reference points including a third reference point 306c, a fourth reference point 306d, and a fifth reference point 306e. As shown in FIG. 3B, the updated set of reference points 306c-e may indicate two subsequent sharp turns over which the UAV 302 is expected to perform a 180 degree turn relative to the initial trajectory 308a of the UAV 302 shown in FIG. 3A.”).
The combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as an aircraft avoiding obstacles that exist within the initial flight path as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified flight path of Piradi with teaching of KESHMIRI. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the aircraft minimizes the collision probability. Furthermore, the aircraft can turn around and return to an original departing point when necessary (KESHMIRI; 0030). Furthermore, All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to retrieve the terrain data from the onboard database based on the aircraft location data, at least one of the first and second terrain obstacles comprising geographical terrain obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0068; “the grid 306 may convey the elevations of potential obstacles that include both natural terrain obstacles and man-made obstacles (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to retrieve the terrain data from the onboard database based on the aircraft location data, at least one of the first and second terrain obstacles comprising urban terrain obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0068; “the grid 306 may convey the elevations of potential obstacles that include both natural terrain obstacles and man-made obstacles (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display the first notification associated with the implementation of the modified flight path in accordance with the viable turn with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle on the onboard display device prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area associated with the no turn situation (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “the FMS may detect an upcoming situation wherein the aircraft may navigate closely to underlying terrain. In such a situation, the FMS may provide alerts to the pilots as soon as the situation is detected, which should provide enough time for the pilots to make adjustments.”, wherein providing sufficient time to make adjustment as soon as the situation is detected is seen as the prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a second notification on the onboard display device while the aircraft is on the current flight path and prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area associated with the no turn situation, the second notification comprising a warning that the aircraft is about to enter the no deviation area associated with the no turn situation (Piradi, at least one para. 0099; “The first visual representation 902 includes a first alert 904 and a second alert 906. The first alert 904 may be used to inform the pilot about the upcoming terrain situation involving the terrain 908. The second alert 906 may inform the pilot that the aircraft is unable to meet the next altitude constraint.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display the modified flight path associated with (Piradi, at least one para. 0039; “the FMS may implement the modifications and display the revised flight path via a display interface for the pilot to follow.”) the viable turn between the first and second terrain obstacles on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0040; “The FMS or another computing system (e.g., a navigation system) may modify a flight path in various ways to avoid detected potential obstacles. For instance, the FMS may adjust (or propose adjusting) the flight path using one or more lateral modifications such that the aircraft navigates around the potential obstacle.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display a no deviation area associated with (Piradi, at least one para. 0093; “FIGS. 6A and 6B depict another mid-flight scenario that involves unplanned winds creating a potential terrain obstacle situation. Similar to the scenario 500, the scenario 600 shows an aircraft approaching the descent phase of the flight with unplanned winds decreasing the safety of the original path as the aircraft approaches the YKM waypoint.”) the no turn situation between the first and second terrain obstacles on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0040; “The FMS or another computing system (e.g., a navigation system) may modify a flight path in various ways to avoid detected potential obstacles. For instance, the FMS may adjust (or propose adjusting) the flight path using one or more lateral modifications such that the aircraft navigates around the potential obstacle.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a third notification identifying at least one no deviation area associated with the no turn situation (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”) on the current flight path on the onboard display device during at least one of a take-off flight phase and a landing flight phase (Piradi, at least one para. 0026; “the flight plan generator may consider and factor weather elements (e.g., the wind, temperature) for areas traversed during the flight since weather variations can drastically impact aircraft's navigation especially during take-offs and landing”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display a selectable option to implement the viable turn on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0039; “The FMS may be configured to enable the pilots to enable and disable the automatic adjustment feature. Alternatively, the FMS may be configured to propose the one or more alternative routes to the pilots with sufficient time (e.g., 2 minutes, 5 minutes, 15 minutes), for the pilots to review and accept or reject. Upon receiving approval, the FMS may implement the modifications and display the revised flight path via a display interface for the pilot to follow.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the viable turn of the aircraft has been initiated in response to the first notification upon entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area between the first obstacle and the second obstacle along the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “Some examples implementations may involve an initial detection of a possible conflict between the aircraft's flight path and the underlying terrain. During navigation, the FMS may utilize aircraft sensor measurements and terrain information to continuously monitor for elevated terrain located in the aircraft's current flight path. This way, the FMS may detect situations where a modification to the flight path may be necessary”, wherein the current flight path indicates that the aircraft is already in the no deviation area); and
automatically implement the viable turn after a predefined period of time following the entry of the aircraft into the no deviation area based on the determination (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “the FMS may detect an upcoming potential obstacle in the terrain and adjust one or more waypoints to cause the flight path to now avoid the obstacle (e.g., circumvent or fly over the obstacle). In some examples, the FMS may be configured to automatically adjust the flight path such the revised flight path avoids the obstacle.”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a fifth notification identifying at least one no deviation area associated with the no turn situation on the current flight path on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”) associated with a flight phase of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0033; “The flight plan may also be modified in-real time during flight.”).
Regarding claim 16, Piradi teaches (Currently Amended) A method (Piradi, at least one para. 0071; “ the method 400 presents an example method for flight navigation path determination that could be used with the system 100”) comprising:
receiving a current flight path of an aircraft from a source of current flight path of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “the FMS may utilize aircraft sensor measurements and terrain information to continuously monitor for elevated terrain located in the aircraft's current flight path”);
receiving current aircraft location data from at least one geospatial sensor of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0027; “Managing the flight plan may involve using aircraft sensor measurements, such as measurements from the aircraft's global positioning system (GPS), inertial navigation system (INS), and radio navigation, to determine the aircraft's position in order to help guide the aircraft along the flight plan.”);
retrieving terrain data from an onboard database based on the current aircraft location data (Piradi, at least one para. 0066; “the FMS 102 may access the terrain information 300 stored in the terrain database 110 to generate and optimize the flight plan 112 for an aircraft. In some examples, the FMS 102 may use the terrain information 300 when initially developing the flight plan 112. Alternatively, the FMS 102 may monitor and use the terrain information 300 during navigation of the flight plan 112 to identify potential obstacles that may arise due to real-time conditions.”),
the terrain data including a first terrain obstacle and a second terrain obstacle (Piradi, at least one para. 0031; “The terrain information may specify the location and elevation of elevated obstacles, such as the elevations of hills, mountains, and other elevated terrain.”, wherein the term obstacles indicates there are more than one obstacles) in close proximity to the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0067; “The obstacle data may indicate locations and elevations for different obstacles, such as elevated terrain that could potentially interfere with aircraft navigation. Many of the obstacles may have locations near an airport since aircrafts descend and land at airports.”);
determining whether the current flight path of the aircraft leads to a no turn situation with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “For instance, high winds, changes in the destination airport or other changes in the current flight path, and other situations can increase the likelihood of one or more elevated obstacles (e.g., elevated terrain) interfering with the current flight path of the aircraft. As such, the FMS may detect such a situation and responsively modify the flight path to achieve a safe course that avoids the terrain.”), the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement a 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle without contact with at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle if the aircraft remains on the current flight path; and
based on a determination that the current flight path of the aircraft leads to the no turn situation if the aircraft remains on the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “As such, the FMS may detect such a situation and responsively modify the flight path to achieve a safe course that avoids the terrain.”):
generating a modified flight path including a turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle to avoid contact with the at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “For instance, the FMS may detect an upcoming potential obstacle in the terrain and adjust one or more waypoints to cause the flight path to now avoid the obstacle (e.g., circumvent or fly over the obstacle). In some examples, the FMS may be configured to automatically adjust the flight path such the revised flight path avoids the obstacle. For instance, the FMS may develop a revised flight path that incorporates modifications to avoid potential terrain interference while still accommodating the target destination and abilities of the aircraft.”) based on the minimum turn radius of the aircraft (Piradi, at least one para. 0085; “the FMS 102 may select modifications to the initial flight path based on one or more of an engine type of the aircraft or capabilities of the aircraft, fuel available, and weather conditions of nearby areas.”, wherein a minimum turn radius of the aircraft can be seen as capabilities of the aircraft and 180 degree turn is inherently present within the aircraft of Piradi), and
displaying (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a first notification associated with implementation (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”) of a modified flight path in accordance with the 1800 viable turn with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle on an onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0040; “The FMS may also adjust (or propose adjusting) the flight path vertically such that the aircraft navigates at a different altitude that avoids the potential obstacles”).
Piradi does not explicitly teach the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement a 1800 turn between the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle without contact with at least one of the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle if the aircraft remains on the current flight path; and
a viable 1800 turn
However, Kearney-Fischer, in the same field of endeavor (Kearney-Fischer, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates generally to vehicle collision or obstacle avoidance systems. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to collision or obstacle avoidance systems for autonomous and remote controlled aircraft.”) teaches the no turn situation occurring when a minimum turn radius of the aircraft is insufficient for the aircraft to implement if the aircraft remains on the current flight path (Kearney-Fischer, at least one para. 0043; “FIG. 2E illustrates fifth flight scenario 200E, where the alternate flight path takes into account both the ground obstacle 210 and the one or more contextual obstacles 211, and the detour 209 is determined to avoid both. To avoid both obstacles, as described above, the collision avoidance system is not only receiving obstacle tracking data regarding the obstacles along the first flight path 202, it is constantly receiving obstacle tracking data for the one or more contextual obstacles as well. “, wherein, it is inherent that the flight path 209 is calculated because aircraft 204 is not able to go between or turn around the obstacle 210 and 211), and
a viable 1800 turn
The combination of Piradi and Kearney-Fischer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field as an aircraft avoiding obstacles that exist within the initial flight path as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the current flight path of Piradi with teaching of Kearney-Fischer. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the aircraft minimize the collision probability in line with the FAA rules and regulation (Kearney-Fischer; 0043-0044).
The combination of Piradi and Kearney-Fischer does not explicitly teach a viable 1800 turn and a 1800 turn
However, KESHMIRI, in the same field of endeavor (KESHMIRI, at least one para. 0008; “One or more embodiments described herein relate to a UAV having a novel flight control system implemented thereon. For example, in one or more implementations, a system may identify a desired flight path between a current location of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (e.g., a fixed-wing UAV) and a destination. In one or more implementations, the system modifies a trajectory or flyable path of the UAV based on a difference between a current trajectory of the UAV and a composite trajectory based on locations of reference points relative to a current location of the UAV.”) teaches a viable 1800 turn and a 1800 turn (KESHMIRI, at least one para. 0081; “FIG. 3B shows an example flight path 300b after the UAV 302 has passed the first two reference points 306a-b and identified an updated set of reference points including a third reference point 306c, a fourth reference point 306d, and a fifth reference point 306e. As shown in FIG. 3B, the updated set of reference points 306c-e may indicate two subsequent sharp turns over which the UAV 302 is expected to perform a 180 degree turn relative to the initial trajectory 308a of the UAV 302 shown in FIG. 3A.”).
The combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as an aircraft avoiding obstacles that exist within the initial flight path as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified flight path of Piradi with teaching of KESHMIRI. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the aircraft minimizes the collision probability. Furthermore, the aircraft can turn around and return to an original departing point when necessary (KESHMIRI; 0030). Furthermore, All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising, retrieving the terrain data from the onboard database based on the aircraft location data, at least one of the first and second terrain obstacles comprising geographical terrain obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0068; “the grid 306 may convey the elevations of potential obstacles that include both natural terrain obstacles and man-made obstacles (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising, retrieving the terrain data from the onboard database based on the aircraft location data, at least one of the first and second terrain obstacles comprising urban terrain obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0068; “the grid 306 may convey the elevations of potential obstacles that include both natural terrain obstacles and man-made obstacles (e.g., buildings, bridges, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising, displaying the first notification associated with the implementation of the modified flight path in accordance with the viable turn with respect to the first terrain obstacle and the second terrain obstacle on the onboard display device prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area associated with the no turn situation (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “the FMS may detect an upcoming situation wherein the aircraft may navigate closely to underlying terrain. In such a situation, the FMS may provide alerts to the pilots as soon as the situation is detected, which should provide enough time for the pilots to make adjustments.”, wherein providing sufficient time to make adjustment as soon as the situation is detected is seen as the prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The method of claim 16, further comprising, displaying (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a second notification on the onboard display device while the aircraft is on the current flight path and prior to entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area associated with the no turn situation, the second notification comprising a warning that the aircraft is about to enter the no deviation area associated with the no turn situation (Piradi, at least one para. 0099; “The first visual representation 902 includes a first alert 904 and a second alert 906. The first alert 904 may be used to inform the pilot about the upcoming terrain situation involving the terrain 908. The second alert 906 may inform the pilot that the aircraft is unable to meet the next altitude constraint.”).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, further comprising displaying the modified flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0063; “The user interface 208 may utilize one or more displays positioned on one or more aircrafts. When the FMS 102 is positioned on an aircraft, the user interface 208 may be components of the aircraft's navigation system. Particularly, the FMS 102 may display and enable operation of flight plans (e.g., an initial flight plan and revised flight plans) and other information for the aircraft using the navigation system.”) associated with the viable turn between the first and second terrain obstacles on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0092; “FIG. 5B illustrates a second visual representation 508 that conveys a revised flight path for the aircraft. Particularly, the second visual representation 508 includes a vertical modification 510 as represented in the alert 512, which conveys that the pilot should maintain a vertical elevation of 1000 feet when navigating over the upcoming terrain. This way, the aircraft may safely avoid elevated terrain in the aircraft's current path by modifying the aircraft's flight path.”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 16, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Previously Presented) The method of claim 16, further comprising displaying a no deviation area (Piradi, at least one para. 0063; “The user interface 208 may utilize one or more displays positioned on one or more aircrafts. When the FMS 102 is positioned on an aircraft, the user interface 208 may be components of the aircraft's navigation system. Particularly, the FMS 102 may display and enable operation of flight plans (e.g., an initial flight plan and revised flight plans) and other information for the aircraft using the navigation system.”) associated with the no turn situation between the first and second terrain obstacles on the onboard display device (Piradi, at least one para. 0091; “FIG. 5A illustrates a first visual representation 502 that conveys that current path of the aircraft, the detected elevated terrain 504, and an alert 506 to inform the pilot of the detected situation. The FMS may display the alert 506 to inform the pilot that a return to the original flight path may place the aircraft on a path towards elevated terrain. This alert 506 may be useful to ensure that the pilot is aware of the situation. As such, the pilot may receive the alert 506 with enough time to decide upon an alternative route that avoids the terrain.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piradi (US 20210097869 A1), Kearney-Fischer (US 20240119849 A1), and KESHMIRI (US 20240046803 A1), and further in view of Bazawada (US 20210020055 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the viable turn of the aircraft has been initiated in response to the first notification upon entry of the aircraft into a no deviation area between the first obstacle and the second obstacle along the current flight path (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “Some examples implementations may involve an initial detection of a possible conflict between the aircraft's flight path and the underlying terrain. During navigation, the FMS may utilize aircraft sensor measurements and terrain information to continuously monitor for elevated terrain located in the aircraft's current flight path. This way, the FMS may detect situations where a modification to the flight path may be necessary”, wherein current flight path indicates that the aircraft is already in the no deviation area); and
display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a potential collision alert on the onboard display device based on the determination (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”).
Even though Piradi teaches “alert”, Piradi does not explicitly teach that the alert is a potential collision alert.
However, Bazawada in the same field of endeavor (Bazawada, at least one para. 0011; “Embodiments of the subject matter described herein generally relate to systems and methods for graphically depicting the spatial relationship between a route of travel for a vehicle and one or more unmanned vehicles in a vicinity of the route.”) teaches a potential collision alert (Bazawada, at least one para. 0020; “an onboard detection system 120 may be realized as a collision avoidance system that measures, senses, or otherwise detects air traffic, obstacles, terrain and/or the like in the vicinity of the aircraft 102 and provides corresponding detection data to one or more of the other onboard systems 108, 110, 114, 116, 118.”)
The combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Bazawada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as generating modified flight path to avoid obstacles as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified the general alert of Piradi with a collision alert from the collision avoidance system of Bazawada. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that operator of the aircraft can be specifically inform about the type of alert.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piradi (US 20210097869 A1), Kearney-Fischer (US 20240119849 A1), and KESHMIRI (US 20240046803 A1), and further in view of Estkowski (US 20200334996 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and KESHMIRI teaches the limitations of claim 1, upon which the instant claim depends, as discussed supra. Further, Piradi teaches (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive mobile obstacle data including first and second mobile obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0031; “The terrain information may also include information that specifies elevations of man-made obstacle”);
determine whether the current flight path of the aircraft leads to a no turn situation with respect to the first and second mobile obstacles (Piradi, at least one para. 0035; “For instance, high winds, changes in the destination airport or other changes in the current flight path, and other situations can increase the likelihood of one or more elevated obstacles (e.g., elevated terrain) interfering with the current flight path of the aircraft. As such, the FMS may detect such a situation and responsively modify the flight path to achieve a safe course that avoids the terrain.”); and
display (Piradi, at least one para. 0037; “the aircraft's navigation system may provide visual alerts”) a fourth notification associated with implementation of (Piradi, at least one para. 0038; “The FMS may use the alerts to convey information to the pilots, such as detected undesirable weather conditions, a detection of elevated terrain that may interfere with the aircraft's current flight path, or to inform of proposed or automatic changes to the flight plan.”) the modified flight path in accordance with the viable turn with respect to the first and second mobile obstacles on the onboard display device based on the determination (Piradi, at least one para. 0040; “The FMS may also adjust (or propose adjusting) the flight path vertically such that the aircraft navigates at a different altitude that avoids the potential obstacles”).
Even though Piradi teaches multiple obstacles, Piradi does not explicitly teach that the obstacles can be mobile obstacles.
However, Estkowski in the same field of endeavor (Estkowski, at least one para. 0001; “The present disclosure relates generally to routing of vehicles to maintain separation of vehicles and to avoid obstacles.”) teaches mobile obstacle data including first and second mobile obstacles (Estkowski, at least one para. 0081; “Time rings 932, 934 are also useful in determining positions of obstacles 908, 910, 912, particularly if the obstacles are in motion.”)
The combination of Piradi, Kearney-Fischer, and Estkowski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field as generating modified flight path to avoid obstacles as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified terrain obstacles of Piradi with mobile obstacles of Estkowski. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that operator of the aircraft can not only account for stationary obstacles but also mobile obstacles to modify the flight path accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UPUL P CHANDRASIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-5823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30 am to 5pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/U.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665