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 .
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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received amendments to the drawings and claims in addition to corresponding remarks on 05 November 2025 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 05 June 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections” “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the outstanding claim note pertaining to claim 2, the examiner acknowledges that this has been addressed. The examiner appreciates the efforts of the applicant.
Regarding the outstanding objection to claim 7, the examiner notes that claim 7 has been cancelled as the subject matter has been incorporated into the independent claims. The examiner notes that the amended subject matter in the independent claims contains the suggested antecedent basis correction. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for "computing means" as presented in previously-presented claim 9, the examiner notes that claim 9 has been amended to remove this terminology. As such, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is withdrawn as it no longer applies.
Regarding the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for mental process, the examiner notes that the independent claims now recite a positive/explicit control step per the recommendation of the examiner. Regarding the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for living subject matter, the examiner notes that the claim has been amended to prevent this interpretation. Finally, regarding the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for signals per se of claim 8, the examiner notes that the claim now positively claims a non-transitory form of memory. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The examiner reviewed the amendments made to Figures 2 and 3 and notes that no informalities exist, nor is new matter presented. The drawings amendments are accepted.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner has reviewed the applicant's arguments and notes that particular arguments against the previous combination of prior art presented is rendered moot as applicant has amended the claim set. However, for clarity of record, the examiner has reviewed the arguments provided by the applicant and has not found the reasons to dismiss the disclosure of Petillon (US 2006/0235581 A1; previously presented) to be persuasive. First, the applicant makes certain assertions clarifying distinct subject matter between Petillon and the instant application such as "proposes a resolution of a system of complex differential equations" (page 14 of the remarks), "…using a simulation." (page 14 of the remarks), etc. Regarding these particular differences, the examiner respectfully notes that merely because the prior art discloses additional elements does not mean that the disclosure does not read upon the claims of the instant application. Applicant provides a beneficial summary of statements against the applicability of Petillon on page 15-16 of the remarks, namely:
"Petillon does not determine a 3D flight corridor"
"does not detect a conflict using the 3D flight corridor and a terrain/obstacle database"
"does not modify the vertical profile depending on the detection of a conflict"
"and does not adapt the guidance based on the modified vertical profile".
Regarding 1), Paragraph [0035-0036, 0049, 0128] (as just mere examples, not an all-inclusive list) discuss establishing a tube/tunnel that surrounds/extends along the flight trajectory. This is analogous to a flight corridor.
Regarding 2), Paragraph [0028, 0036, 0068, 0101, 0112, 0128] (as just mere examples, not an all-inclusive list) discuss comparing the trajectory including the tube/tunnel/volume surrounding the trajectory against a terrain database to determine if the tube intersects with the terrain. The determination of an intersection is analogous to detecting a conflict.
Regarding 3), Paragraph [0101] and Figure [2, 4, 5, 9] (as just mere examples, not an all-inclusive list) discuss modifying a route by changing altitude (and increasing it, as shown and discussed). Thus, the "vertical profile" is modified. However, the examiner notes that applicant has now specified that the computer does so, which was not previously presented. Therefore, this is moot.
Regarding 4), Paragraph [0048, 0059, 0114, 0124, 0132-0133] (as just mere examples, not an all-inclusive list) discuss guidance per the itinerary (modified as previously discussed).
The sections noted by the examiner in the prior office action read upon the limitations previously presented and the examiner holds that the above-mentioned arguments against the applicability of Petillon are not found to be persuasive. Further, the examiner notes that the disclosure of Petillon discusses multiple embodiments of incorporation of the invention. For instance, an operator may perform modification (Paragraph [0028]) or the operations may be carried out an in automatic manner (Paragraphs [0007, 0028, 0030, 0037, 0107-0114, 0132]). Applicant merely selecting an embodiment that is counter to the instant application ignores the remainder of the disclosure that continues to read upon the claim set.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertions of the applicant that Petillon does not disclose points 1-4 above.
Regarding "Petillon does not each or suggest a fortiori modifying the vertical profile by increasing the altitude of the aircraft by an altitude difference between the altitude of the at least one obstacle and a minimum altitude of the 3D corridor at the location of the conflict", the examiner notes that Page 18 addressed what portions of this were disclosed explicitly, implicitly, or otherwise by Petillon and relied upon the teachings of a secondary reference as is consistent with USPTO guidance for elements not explicitly disclosed by Petillon. Further, these elements were not previously presented in the independent claims (thus, a moot point).
Finally, the examiner notes that secondary references were relied upon in a manner that read upon claim limitations of concern in an obvious manner with rationale to combine. Take, for instance, the case of previously-presented claim 7, in which the examiner relied upon the teachings of Subelet et al. (US 2008/0319671 A1) for teaching an increase in a vertical profile of an aircraft by a particular vertical distance. The examiner provided direct rationale as to why the combination would have been obvious and why a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to make the combination, using a direct teaching from the supporting reference. Not only does this satisfy the establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness, the examiner showed where the desire to make the combination is present in the primary art and a direct explicit teaching with the expression of an advantage from the secondary art, which according to MPEP 2144.II. is the strongest rationale for combining references. Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertions by the applicant on page 19 of the remarks that the combinations presented by the examiner are improper and based on impermissible hindsight.
Therefore, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
New grounds for rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, may be found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 05 November 2025. Claim 7 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claims 1-6 and 8-18 are pending and rejected as noted further below.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 states "defined as succession" and should state "defined as a succession".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
CONCERN 1: Claim 2 has been amended to depend upon claim 14. However, claim 14 does not contain subject matter which claim 2 further limits. Therefore, it is unclear how the subject matter of claim 2 is further limiting the subject matter of claim 14. The examiner is unsure of this is a typographical mistake or intended. The examiner will continue to interpret the claim as if it were intentional.
CONCERN 2: Claim 14 states "wherein the method is implemented iteratively in response to the occurrence of events, said events including…". The examiner notes that specification [0101] was consulted, but did not provide further detail other than what is described in claim 14. Ultimately, "events" encompasses an infinite number of possible "triggers" to reperform the method. The language of the claim does not close interpretation to the two examples listed (as "including" is used, interpretation is open to more) and thus the examiner is unsure of what else may constitute an "event". It could be an emergency, change in altitude, flap status, autopilot engagement, movement more than 1 foot from a previous position, among an infinite number of other possibilities. As the scope of the claim is unclear, the claim is rendered indefinite. As claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), dependent claims 2 and 3 are as well by dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Particularly, MPEP 608.01(n).III states “In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain:(i) a reference to a claim previously set forth“. As claim 14 occurs after the instance of claim 2, it is not referencing a claim “previously set forth”. Thus, it is considered an improper dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petillon (US 2006/0235581 A1; hereinafter Petillon) in view of Morizet et al. (US 2004/0225420 A1; hereinafter Morizet) in further view of Subelet et al. (US 2008/0319671 A1; hereinafter Subelet).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method) and 9 (system): Petillon discloses A method implemented by a flight management system comprising a computer located on board an aircraft, said aircraft comprising an autopilot for guiding the aircraft based on one or more guidance commands determined by the flight management system, wherein the method comprises: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0002, 0007, 0026-0028, 0059-0070, 0107, 0121], Figure [6], and Claim [41], Petillon discloses a method implemented by an apparatus that is on an aircraft, comprising computation means (memory and processing means). It includes a system that manages flight (a flight management system, as explicitly discussed) and an autopilot function to carry out the trajectory/itinerary) / A system for guiding an aircraft, comprising a flight management system and an autopilot for guiding the aircraft based on one or more guidance commands determined by the flight management system, the flight management system comprising a computer located on board an aircraft, wherein the computer is configured to: (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0002, 0007, 0025-0028, 0059-0070, 0107, 0121], Figure [6], and Claim [41], Petillon discloses a method and system implemented by an apparatus that is on an aircraft, comprising computation means (memory and processing means). It includes a system that manages flight (a flight management system, as explicitly discussed) and an autopilot function to carry out the trajectory/itinerary)
receiving, by the computer, an estimated 3D position of the aircraft, (per claim 1) / receive an estimated 3D position of the aircraft, (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0044, 0062, 0111, 0118], Petillon discloses obtaining a position of the aircraft in three dimensions)
at least one safety distance defining, around the estimated position of the aircraft, a zone within which the actual position of the aircraft is located [with a probability equal to or higher than a predefined threshold,] (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0035, 0049, 0057, 0128], Petillon discloses obtaining a safety distance (volume) around the aircraft and its trajectory)
a lateral path of the aircraft, a vertical flight profile of the aircraft, and (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0050-0054] and Figure [1-4], Petillon discloses obtaining a path of the aircraft including a horizontal (lateral) and vertical projected profile)
a terrain and obstacle database; (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0064, 0108, 0112, 0117, 0120], Petillon discloses obtaining information from a terrain and obstacle database)
said lateral path and said vertical flight profile defining a predicted 3D path of the aircraft (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0050-0054] and Figure [1-4], Petillon discloses obtaining a path of the aircraft including a horizontal (lateral) and vertical projected profile)
said lateral path defining waypoints of the aircraft, from a point of departure to a point of arrival, each waypoint being defined by its coordinates and (per claims 1 and 9) (The examiner notes that “from a point of departure to a point of arrival” does not carry significant patentable weight, as any location pertaining to a point in time before another may constitute a point of departure (departing a particular space) and any location pertaining to a point in time after another may constitute a point of arrival (arriving at a particular space). Paragraph [0030, 0043, 0082-0084, 0142], Petillon discloses that the trajectory/itinerary contains a plurality of points (waypoints),wherein each itinerary portion can be defined by the coordinates at each point (thus, the points correspond to coordinates))
the vertical flight profile defining an altitude of the aircraft depending on a distance to the point of departure or arrival; (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0052-0054, 0084, 0086, 0098] and Figure [2, 4], Petillon discloses a vertical flight profile that corresponds to altitude at waypoints along the flight path, including points of take-off/landing (depending on))
determining a 3D flight corridor of the aircraft, by the computer, taking into account the at least one safety distance around the lateral path and vertical profile, said 3D corridor corresponding to a set of positions at which the aircraft can be located at a given time while following its path, [with a given probability]; (per claim 1) / determine a 3D flight corridor of the aircraft, taking into account the at least one safety distance around the lateral path and vertical profile, said 3D corridor corresponding to a set of positions at which the aircraft can be located at a given time while following its path, [with a given probability]; (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0035-0036, 0049, 0128] and Figure [2-4], Petillon discloses establishing a safety volume/tunnel surrounding the trajectory (including the horizontal and vertical components) using the safety margins, the trajectory represents where the aircraft will be along the points)
projecting, by the computer, said 3D corridor onto the terrain and obstacle database; (per claim 1) / project said 3D corridor onto the terrain and obstacle database; and (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0101, 0112, 0128], Petillon discloses identifying any interference between the safety volume (tunnel/corridor) and the terrain and obstacle database. The comparison of the tunnel against terrain data is a projection but the display of the tunnel against obstacle data for interference identification is also considered a projection)
detecting, by the computer, whether a conflict exists between the 3D corridor and at least one obstacle of the terrain and obstacle database at a given conflict location; (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0028, 0036, 0068, 0101, 0103, 0112, 0122, 0128], Petillon discloses identifying any interference between the safety volume (tunnel/corridor) and the terrain and obstacle database)
wherein, if no conflict is detected, the method comprises sending at least one guidance command from the computer to said autopilot for guiding the aircraft according to the lateral path and said vertical profile, and (per claim 1) / wherein, if no conflict is detected, the flight management system is configured to send at least one guidance command to said autopilot for guiding the aircraft according to the lateral path and said vertical profile, and (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0007, 0028, 0042, 0070, 0107-0108, 0114, 0124, 0132] and Claim [37], Petillon discloses automatic operation of calculating a trajectory for the aircraft and verifying flight safety along the trajectory relative to terrain data. The output is provided to the autopilot for the purpose of guiding the aircraft)
wherein if a conflict is detected, the method comprises: modifying, [by the computer], the vertical profile to increase the altitude of the aircraft at the location of said conflict […] (per claim 1) / wherein, if a conflict is detected, [the computer] is configured to modify the vertical profile to increase the altitude of the aircraft at the location of said conflict […] (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0101] and Figure [2, 4, 5, 9], Petillon discloses that if a conflict exists, modifying the route by changing altitude to eliminate the interference. As shown (and is obvious as decreasing the altitude would exacerbate a crash), this is in the upward (increasing) direction)
sending at least one guidance command from the computer to said autopilot for guiding the aircraft according to the lateral path and the modified vertical profile. (per claim 1) / the flight management system being configured to send at least one guidance command to said autopilot for guiding the aircraft according to the lateral path and the modified vertical profile. (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0007, 0028, 0042, 0048, 0059, 0070, 0107-0108, 0114, 0124, 0132-0133] and Claim [37], Petillon discloses that the aircraft follows the trajectory including the lateral and vertical components. Further, Petillon discloses automatic operation of calculating a trajectory for the aircraft and verifying flight safety along the trajectory relative to terrain data. The output is provided to the autopilot for the purpose of guiding the aircraft)
The claimed invention of the independent claims differs from the primary prior art of reference Petillon in three ways:
The safety zone indicates that the position of the aircraft is located in a volume with a particular probability
A computer versus an operator performing vertical flight profile adjustment
The step of modifying the vertical profile increases the altitude by a particular value
The examiner submits that the aforementioned differences are merely obvious variants of the disclosure of Petillon.
Regarding point 1), with a probability equal to or higher than a predefined threshold and with a given probability, the examiner notes that Petillon does not explicitly note that the tunnel/safety margin corresponds to a probability that the aircraft is within the volume with a probability above a threshold, but this is implicitly taught in paragraph [0128] wherein Petillon discloses “i.e. margins constituting minimum distances that can be accepted relative to the relief, both in a horizontal plane and in a vertical plane, while taking account of piloting accuracy and the accuracy of the position sensors”.
However, Morizet, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches at least one safety distance defining, around the estimated position of the aircraft, a zone within which the actual position of the aircraft is located with a probability equal to or higher than a predefined threshold and with a given probability (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0131], Morizet teaches establishing a virtual protection envelope around an aircraft and its future trajectory with a margin corresponding to uncertainty of the instruments. “The aircraft A is thus guaranteed to be in the envelope in the minutes to come, and to be so with a certain probability”)
Petillon and Morizet are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon with the implicit teaching that the margins are selected corresponding to a probability of occupation as explicitly taught by Morizet in the interest of taking into account instrument/localization uncertainty (Petillon, Paragraph [0128] and Morizet, Paragraph [0131]). Thus, the examiner submits that while merely describing that the margins represent a probability that the aircraft resides within the envelope due to instrument inaccuracy is implicitly taught by Petillon, it was also known in the art and explicitly described by the teachings of Morizet. Navigation localization sensor uncertainty/inaccuracy/error and its effects on flight trajectory planning is old and well-known in the art; one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to merely clarify the disclosure of Petillon includes further consideration of localization error as taught by Morizet in the interest of accounting for sensor uncertainty.
Regarding point 2, modifying, by the computer, the vertical profile (per claim 1) / the computer is configured to modify the vertical profile (per claim 9), the examiner notes that Petillon does not explicitly disclose an embodiment where the computer system performs modification of the vertical profile. Petillon discloses generally automated tasks (Paragraph [0095, 0107]) but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment where a non-human modifies the vertical profile. However, merely automating a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (See MPEP 2144.04.III.). Therefore, specifying that the computer performs the vertical profile adjustment is merely considered an obvious variant of Petillon.
Regarding point 3, Petillon discloses navigation at a low altitude (Paragraph [0022, 0025]) and establishing margins of safety to prevent collision with terrain (Paragraph [0026, 0035]). Further, Petillon discloses changing altitude in response to identification of an interference (Paragraph [0101]). However, Petillon does not explicitly disclose that the vertical avoidance maneuver is particularly a difference between the altitude of the obstacle and the minimum altitude of the corridor.
However, Subelet, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches […] wherein said step of modifying the vertical profile consists in increasing the altitude of the aircraft by an altitude difference (δH) between the altitude of the at least one obstacle and a minimum altitude of the 3D corridor at the location of said conflict; and […] (per claims 1 and 9) (Paragraph [0083] and Figure [3a], Subelet teaches increasing an altitude of the aircraft by a difference between the altitude of the obstacle and the minimum obstacle clearance distance to avoid collision)
Petillon and Subelet are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to explicitly disclose that avoidance maneuvers at a minimum allow clearance of the tube with a certain altitude difference, as taught by Subelet in the interest (rationale) of preventing a crash into the identified terrain (Subelet, Paragraph [0083]).
Therefore, the examiner submits that the independent claims of the instant application are merely an obvious variant of the disclosure of Petillon per the teachings of the supporting references provided above.
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon further discloses wherein the at least one safety distance comprises a lateral safety distance, and a vertical safety distance. (Paragraph [0057, 0076, 0086, 0128], Petillon discloses horizontal (lateral) and vertical safety margins)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein determining the 3D corridor consists in predicting a 3D path of the aircraft based on the lateral path and on the vertical profile, and then in successively adding each of the lateral and vertical safety distances to the 3D path. (Paragraph [0127-0128], Petillon discloses predicting a trajectory and adding the safety margins to establish a safety volume around the trajectory (the act of adding the margin to the predicted trajectory is considered “successive”))
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein determining the 3D corridor consists in predicting a 3D path of the aircraft based on the lateral path and on the vertical profile, defining a safety ellipse based on the lateral and vertical safety distances, then in adding the safety ellipse to the 3D path. (Paragraph [0127-0128], Petillon discloses predicting a trajectory and adding the safety margins to establish a safety volume around the trajectory. The shape of the volume is disclosed as a tube/tunnel with dimensions based on horizontal and vertical components)
While Petillon does not explicitly disclose the shape as a “ellipse”, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that a disclosure of a tube/tunnel generally refers to a shape having a generally-circular cross-section. A circle is a specific type of ellipse. Thus, Petillon implicitly teaches the use of an ellipse-shaped cross section. Further, the examiner notes that the particular shape is merely that of a design choice, and that differing shapes of the cross section established may be considered obvious variants of one another.
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses A computer program comprising program-code instructions stored on a computer-readable medium, said program-code instructions being configured, when said program is run on a computer, to execute a method as claimed [in claim 1]. (Paragraph [0059-0070, 0107, 0115-0124] and Claim [41], Petillon discloses an embodiment as a computer-implemented method stored in memory)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the method is implemented iteratively each time the aircraft has covered a predefined distance along the 3D path. (Paragraph [0039], Petillon discloses that the process is iterative, and is performed when a state of the aircraft (including 3D position) in the event of a substantial change)
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the method is implemented iteratively in response to the aircraft reaching one predefined position along a plurality of predefined positions defined along the path. (Paragraph [0028, 0038-0041, 0142], Petillon discloses that the process is iterative, and is performed when a state of the aircraft (including 3D position) in the event of a substantial change)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the method is implemented iteratively in response to the occurrence of events, said events including at least one event among a decrease in the accuracy of aircraft position measurements, or a deviation of the aircraft from its path. (Paragraph [0028, 0038-0041, 0060, 0142], Petillon discloses that the process is iterative, and is performed when a state of the aircraft (including 3D position) in the event of a substantial change and when the itinerary/path is modified (deviation from the path))
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the aircraft comprises at least one sensor, said 3D position of the aircraft being determined from the data provided by said at least one sensor. (Paragraph [0118], Petillon discloses means for position detection from sensors)
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein if said at least one safety distance comprises a single safety distance defined around aircraft positions, the 3D corridor is defined as a succession of cylinders defined around various path sections. (Paragraph [0035-0036, 0049, 0103], Petillon discloses a tube surrounding a flight path. A tube is a succession of cylinders)
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet in further view of Subelet in further view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0026720 A1; hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein said step of projecting said 3D corridor onto the terrain and obstacle database comprises: subtracting the vertical safety distance from the aircraft altitude at each point on the 3D path, which provides a modified 3D path, (Paragraph [0091] and Figure [5], Petillon discloses showing MS1, which is a difference (subtraction) between TDC and a minimum line along the path)
determining a 2D map [comprising cells] by applying the horizontal safety distance around said modified 3D path, each [cell of the 2D map being a square between two latitudes and two longitudes] indicating whether the 3D corridor passes through each cell and, if the 3D corridor passes through a [cell], the [minimum altitude of the 3D corridor in this cell]. (Paragraph [0011, 0050-0052, 0091, 0128] and Figure [5], Petillon discloses minimum altitudes for each segment (corridor) of a path, applying safety distances from the trajectory TDC as necessary. The horizontal projection (2D map) of the itinerary and corresponding details)
Petillon does not explicitly disclose use of cells to partition the environment, the minimum altitude information provided in each cell.
However, Liu, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems, teaches organizing a 2D map comprising cells, each cell of the 2D map being a square between two latitudes and two longitudes, and minimum altitude of the 3D corridor in this cell (Paragraph [0091] and Figure [10], Liu teaches the use of a 2D grip map comprising cells having perpendicular demarcation lines (two latitudes and two longitudes for each square), with minimum height levels for each cell)
Petillon and Liu are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include a 2D cell-based map for elevation data as taught by Liu, as this is merely a design choice as to how data may be presented or processed. Ultimately, Petillon discloses horizontal projections of a trajectory (2D map) and the minimum flight levels along the way, but merely differs in the presentation of this map. Use of cells to quantify areas of travel and their minimum flight levels bound by terrain is merely a design choice and was also known in the art at the time of effective filing through the teachings of Liu. As the examiner holds that this is a matter of design choice, one would have been motivated to make this change in the interest of compact/simple data display.
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 10 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet in further view of Liu. Petillon discloses wherein the step of detecting a conflict comprises comparing the 2D map to a map of obstacles indicating a maximum altitude of obstacles in [each cell], and if, [in a given cell] the minimum altitude of the corridor is less than or equal to said maximum altitude of obstacles, detecting that a conflict exists. (Paragraph [0028, 0036, 0068, 0101, 0103, 0112, 0122, 0128], Petillon discloses identifying any interference between the safety volume (tunnel/corridor) and the terrain and obstacle database)
Petillon does not explicitly disclose use of cells to partition the environment, the minimum altitude information provided in each cell.
However, Liu, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems, teaches organizing a 2D map comprising cells (Paragraph [0091] and Figure [10], Liu teaches the use of a 2D grip map comprising cells having perpendicular demarcation lines (two latitudes and two longitudes for each square), with minimum height levels for each cell)
Petillon and Liu are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include a 2D cell-based map for elevation data as taught by Liu, as this is merely a design choice as to how data may be presented or processed. Ultimately, Petillon discloses horizontal projections of a trajectory (2D map) and the minimum flight levels along the way, but merely differs in the presentation of this map. Use of cells to quantify areas of travel and their minimum flight levels bound by terrain is merely a design choice and was also known in the art at the time of effective filing through the teachings of Liu. As the examiner holds that this is a matter of design choice, one would have been motivated to make this change in the interest of compact/simple data display. Further, Liu teaches that aircraft may access the map data for the rationale of avoiding collisions with objects (Paragraph [0097]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet in further view of Subelet in further view of Schultz et al. (US 2010/0292871 A1; hereinafter Schultz).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 14 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the aircraft comprises a plurality of sensors, and (Paragraph [0118], Petillon discloses means for position detection from sensors) but does not explicitly disclose sensor fusion for distance/location measurements.
However, Schultz, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the estimated position of the aircraft and said at least one safety distance received by the computer are determined via a fusion of multi-sensor data from the plurality of sensors of the aircraft. (Paragraph [0040], Schultz teaches sensor fusion of localization sensors (the localization of position impacts distance of the margins as noted in the parent claim) of sensors of the aircraft)
Petillon and Schultz are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include localization sensor fusion as taught by Schultz in the interest of accuracy enhancement (Schultz, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon does not explicitly disclose the use of sensor fusion as noted in the parent claim.
However, Schultz, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the fusion of multi-sensor data employs a Kalman filter. (Paragraph [0040], Schultz teaches sensor fusion of localization sensors through a Kalman filter)
Petillon and Schultz are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include localization sensor fusion as taught by Schultz by using a Kalman filter in the interest of accuracy enhancement (Schultz, Paragraph [0040]). The examiner submits that the use and benefits of both sensor fusion and Kalman filters are old and well-known in the art; mere recitation of use of either of these concepts is considered an obvious variant, as explicitly shown by Schultz.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet in further view of Subelet in further view of Pratt et al. (US 6,421,603 B1; date of patent 16 July 2002, hereinafter Pratt).
Regarding claim 17: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the 3D corridor is defined as a series of [parallelepipeds] around successive path segments. (Paragraph [0035-0036, 0049, 0128] and Figure [2-4], Petillon discloses establishing a safety volume/tunnel surrounding the trajectory (including the horizontal and vertical components) using the safety margins. A tube is a succession of cylinders) but does not explicitly disclose alternative shapes.
However, Pratt, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches use of parallelepipeds around successive path segments. (Column [3] Lines [28-42], Pratt teaches using parallelopiped shapes to surround the trajectory)
Petillon and Pratt are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include alternative shapes surrounding the trajectory other than a tube/tunnel, as taught by Pratt, as this is merely a matter of obvious design choice. Rationale to utilize the shapes taught by Pratt are found in Column [3] Lines [38-42], wherein Pratt states “These extents provide clearance distances for the aircraft from terrain or other hazards. Clearance is required to compensate for a number of factors, such as trajectory-modeling errors, navigation and sensor uncertainty, guidance uncertainty, and mandated clearance offsets.” One would have been motivated to seek out the teachings of Pratt, as Pratt is directly referenced in Petillon in paragraph [0021] of Petillon. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to find the teachings of Pratt from the direct disclosure in Petillon and modify the shape of the boundary area as taught by Pratt as a design choice, for the rationale presented in Pratt.
Regarding claim 18: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Petillon in view of Morizet and further in view of Subelet. Petillon discloses wherein the 3D corridor is defined as a succession of [elliptical] cylinders having as axes the various segments of the 3D path. (Paragraph [0035-0036, 0049, 0128] and Figure [2-4], Petillon discloses establishing a safety volume/tunnel surrounding the trajectory (including the horizontal and vertical components) using the safety margins. A tube is a succession of cylinders) but does not explicitly disclose alternative shapes.
However, Pratt, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches use of parallelepipeds around successive path segments. (Column [3] Lines [28-42], Pratt teaches using tube having defined extent both horizontally and vertically, the extents being different (thus, an ellipse rather than a circle))
Petillon and Pratt are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Petillon to include alternative shapes surrounding the trajectory other than a tube/tunnel, as taught by Pratt, as this is merely a matter of obvious design choice. Rationale to utilize the shapes taught by Pratt are found in Column [3] Lines [38-42], wherein Pratt states “These extents provide clearance distances for the aircraft from terrain or other hazards. Clearance is required to compensate for a number of factors, such as trajectory-modeling errors, navigation and sensor uncertainty, guidance uncertainty, and mandated clearance offsets.” One would have been motivated to seek out the teachings of Pratt, as Pratt is directly referenced in Petillon in paragraph [0021] of Petillon. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to find the teachings of Pratt from the direct disclosure in Petillon and modify the shape of the boundary area as taught by Pratt as a design choice, for the rationale presented in Pratt.
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658