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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-20 are currently amended.
Claims 5 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered in view of further consideration of statutory law, Office policy, precedential common law, and the cited prior art as necessitated by the amendments to the claims, and are persuasive in-part for the reasons set forth below.
35 USC § 112f Interpretation
First, Applicant argues that “Without acquiescing as to the validity of the Office action's arguments, Applicant respectfully submits the above amendments render the Office action's arguments moot” [Arguments, pages 7-8].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered and are persuasive. Examiner observes that the amended claims do not require a 35 USC § 112f interpretation.
35 USC § 101 Rejections
First, Applicant argues that “Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that pending claims, including independent Claims 1, and 7, are not directed to any of the abstract ideas identified above. In particular, claims 1, and 7 describe a device or a system for ad-hoc delegation of one or more tasks that includes managing a process variable associated with other system using a control loop, so that problems can be identified and addressed in real time….
Furthermore, as recited in the amended Claim 1, the operations of "causing the control loop to perform steps such as disabling automatic control of the process variable, setting the process variable to a specific value, and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value"" is performed by the processor to achieve desired result in real time, and is not merely steps for following rules or instructions. As such, pending claims are not directed to any abstract idea as identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits amended claims 1 and 7 are not directed to the abstract idea of "following rules or instructions" or any other method of organizing human activity. The claims do not merely recite a generic process for delegating tasks or managing behavior” [Arguments, pages 7-10].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the present claims recite a judicial exception. In particular, Examiner observes that delegating tasks is considered to describe steps for following rules or instructions. With regard to the assertion that, “the operations of "causing the control loop to perform steps such as disabling automatic control of the process variable, setting the process variable to a specific value, and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value"" is performed by the processor to achieve desired result in real time, and is not merely steps for following rules or instructions”, Examiner respectfully disagrees and observes that the recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 7 recite concepts identified as abstract ideas, namely certain methods of organizing human activity. As such, Examiner remains unpersuaded.
Second, Applicant argues that “Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance… Applicants submit the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application…
the subject matter of independent claim 1 can be practically realized in an application for controlling a process-control loop and changing a real process variable pursuant to the claimed ordered sequence; by coordinating the HMI, processor, and field application to delegate and close sub-tasks with notifications; and by providing status updates and alerts throughout execution…
For example, because the claims in BASCOM described the concept of filtering content, which is a method of organizing human behavior previously found to be abstract, the Federal Circuit considered them to present a "close call" in the first step of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A), and thus proceeded to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2B) to determine their eligibility. Id. Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2B (Pathway C) because they presented a "technology-based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcame the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems and that amounted to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, it also would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A or B if the examinerhad considered the technology-based solution to be an improvement to computer functionality.
More specifically, when "the limitations containing the [purported] judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim" are evaluated together, amended claim 1 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application” [Arguments, pages 10-12].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the present claims recite a judicial exception without significantly more. With respect to Bascom, which was determined to recite managing personal behavior, Examiner observes that the claims were not determined to recite a practical application at Step 2A prong, 2, and were instead determined to recite an inventive concept at Step 2B. In particular, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of ineligibility because the district court failed to properly perform the second step of the Alice/Mayo test when analyzing a claimed system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network. BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of filtering Internet content, and then walked through the district court’s analysis in part two of the Alice/Mayo test, noting that:
• The district court properly identified the additional elements in the claims, such as a "local client computer," "remote ISP server," "Internet computer network," and "controlled access network accounts" (827 F.3d at 1349, 119 USPQ2d at 1242);
• The district court properly considered the additional elements individually, for example by consulting the specification, which described each of the additional elements as "well-known generic computer components" (827 F.3d at 1349, 119 USPQ2d at 1242); and
• The district court should have considered the additional elements in combination, because the "inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art" (827 F.3d at 1350, 119 USPQ2d at 1242).
Based on this analysis, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. 827 F.3d at 1350, 119 USPQ2d at 1242.
In contrast to Bascom, Examiner respectfully maintains that the present invention does not recite a particular ordered arrangement of additional elements that could be considered to demonstrate an improvement to any particular field of technology or to the functioning of computers.
Further, and with respect to step 2A Prong 2, Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
Examiner observes that independent claims 1 and 7 only recite the following additional elements –
A device… comprising: an user interface; …a computing device including a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: causing the user interface to display GUI elements… wherein the processor communications with the user interface… a second device…; …the user interface…; …the processor…; …the processor…; ..the device… the second device, wherein the processor… the processor…; …the processor… (Claim 1),
A system …an HMI system… a second system; a computing device including a processor, wherein the processor communications with the HMI system… wherein the processor is configured to… the HMI system… the second system; …wherein the processor communicates… the processor…; … the processor… … the processor…; … the processor… (Claim 7).
The apparatus, interface and computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), like the following MPEP example:
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
Furthermore, the computer implemented element is considered to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), like the following MPEP example:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, Examiner remains unpersuaded.
Third, Applicant argues that “Regarding Step 2B… Applicant submits that elements of amended independent claims 1 and 7 provide an inventive concept and amounts to significantly more than exception itself…
Applicant submits additional claim elements of the present invention improve computers or technology. For example, the features of "wherein when the selected task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable; setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value" as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 7 present a "technology-based solution" of providing automated, reliable, and error-resistant control loop management in industrial systems, enabling real-time adjustment and restoration of process variables without manual intervention, thereby enhancing operational safety, efficiency, and accuracy and that amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Hence, the technology-based solution proposed by amended claim 1 is an improvement to computer functionality…” [Arguments, pages 12-15].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the present claims recite a judicial exception without significantly more. As state in response to the above argument with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 and Bascom, Examiner maintains that the present invention does not recite a particular ordered arrangement of additional elements that could be considered to demonstrate an improvement to any particular field of technology or to the functioning of computers. Thus, the above-cited additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons discussed in 2A prong 2 with regard to MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, Examiner remains unpersuaded.
35 USC § 102 Rejections
First, Applicant argues that “Rao does not anticipate, either inherently or expressly, describe, for example, the feature of "wherein when the selected task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable; setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value" as recited in independent claim 1…
Rao merely describes a computing device that includes a user interface which presents a GUI on a display device for operator interaction. Rao further describes a communication interface configured to exchange data with remote servers and avionics systems onboard an aircraft. When an operator initiates a selected activity within the TrustFlow workflow, the system executes the activity. An Activity Verifier Engine verifies the status of the executed activity and may trigger an event. Upon completion of the executed activity, the system issues notifications to relevant personnel and records the transaction in the distributed ledger. However, Rao is completely silent about "wherein when the selected task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable; setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value" as recited in independent claim 1…” [Arguments, pages 15-21].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. For the above-argued limitations, Examiner relies upon the Kawalkar reference as detailed below.
35 USC § 103 Rejections
Second, Applicant argues that “the combination of Rao and Kawalkar does not teach, suggest, or render obvious, for example, the feature of "wherein when the selected task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable; setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value" as recited in independent claim 7…
Kawalkar does not disclose overriding or restoring a control loop, defining first/second communication paths to a control loop, or managing a process variable/setpoint in closed-loop fashion; rather, it focuses on UI-driven checklist adaptation and direct parameter setting…
Therefore, Kawalkar does not cure the deficiencies of Rao and the independent claim 7 is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious over the combination of Rao and Kawalkar…” [Arguments, pages 21-26].
In response, Applicant’s arguments are considered but are not persuasive. With regard to the assertion that “Kawalkar does not disclose overriding or restoring a control loop, defining first/second communication paths to a control loop, or managing a process variable/setpoint in closed-loop fashion; rather, it focuses on UI-driven checklist adaptation and direct parameter setting”, Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the applicant to (Kawalkar, (Id., ¶ 73, Operational variations are classified as “do-verify” and “challenge-response”, wherein annunciations may be visual or aural. In the do-verify method, the pilot performs all the memory items and verifies from a printed or displayed checklist that all items are covered and configured appropriately. The pilot may perform all his memory items and internally marks the items as ‘completed’ if that item is ‘closed-loop’, e.g., the platform can determine the underlying system's state. And when the checklist is manually or automatically displayed, the pilot would have to execute his incomplete/missed assigned items, which are visually emphasized (FIG. 2). Upon successful completion of the checklist, completion is annunciated, for example, “<Checklist Name> Complete”. Annunciation could also be for any grouping defined, or not used at all. Note that the pilot may initiate the challenge response to facilitate a head-up operation), and to (Id., ¶ 74, Conventionally, for the challenge-response method, the co-pilot reads out the checklist item by item, and the captain complies with the same. In the present invention, the captain executes the checklist using the challenge-response method to minimize workload involved in memory recall. In one exemplary embodiment, the captain calls out “Start <ChecklistName>”, and system responds by initiating the checklist and starts executing IIS assigned items. Each pilot assigned item (challenge) is annunciated sequentially and the pilot complies with the challenge (response). Either the pilot manually checks the item if the item is not closed loop, or the item is automatically checked if closed loop. Items may be accomplished simultaneously in some situations);
Here, Kawalkar discloses a control loop (i.e. a landing checklist) as well as changing the processes variable when required by the task (i.e. marking checklist items as completed).
Further, with regard to the assertion that “Kawalkar does not disclose overriding or restoring a control loop…”, Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs the Applicant to (Kawalkar, ¶ 96, The algorithm adapts to prevailing as well as historical non-normal situations to ensure most appropriate aircraft configuration for safe operations and reduced workload by adapting the checklist in following different ways. If one or more subsystems corresponding to checklist item(s) are inoperative, the corresponding checklist items are disabled or removed from the presented checklist. Additionally, the pilot may be notified of any deviation from the normal actions and given the reason why. The pilot can manually specify the algorithm to ignore the item by marking the checklist item, or the algorithm ignores it automatically (discloses overriding a control loop) if underlying systems are sufficiently deterministic. If prevailing or historical situations affect the desired/Target values, they are adapted to suit the prevailing situations. These adaptations are performed through a situation-parameter influence map as follows. Whenever the prescribed situations occur, the target values of corresponding checklist items are set to the limit values (for example)), and to (Id., ¶ 10, In an exemplary embodiment, an adaptive system for confirming a status of at least one of an operator task and an automation task to an operator of a vehicle, comprises a device coupled to receive rendering commands and configured, upon receipt thereof, to render the status; a operational system configured to determine a parameter of an element of the vehicle; and a processor in operable communication with the device and the system, the processor configured to selectively supply the rendering commands to the device that cause the device to simultaneously render operator tasks and automation tasks, wherein the operator tasks have been allocated for execution by the operator, the automation tasks have been allocated for execution by automation, and one of the operator tasks and automation tasks includes a range of values associated with the parameter; inform the operator of the completion of the rendered operator tasks and automation tasks; and inform the operator of the operator task or automation task that includes the value subsequent to being accomplished if the parameter is not within the range),
Here, Kawalkar discloses a procedure for overriding the control loop, as well as the communication paths to the control loop, in accordance with the presently amended claims of the present invention. Thus, Examiner respectfully maintains that the combination of Rao and Kawalkar renders the above-argued claim obvious. As such, Examiner remains unpersuaded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are directed to statutory categories, namely machines.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 7, in part, recite the following abstract idea:
…for ad-hoc delegation of one or more tasks, comprising…: communication paths; …associated with the one or more tasks… via a first communication path of the communication paths, wherein each of the one or more tasks comprising an action that involves a plurality of interactions with …; executing a task from the one or more tasks when an operator selects the task in…; …updating a status of the task while the task is executing in …; and generating alerts for notifying the operator upon completion of the task by …; wherein … further comprises a control loop for managing a process variable associated with… communicates with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein … is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task; wherein when the task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, … is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value (Claim 1),
…for ad-hoc delegation of one or more tasks, comprising: …; communication paths…; …via a first communication path of the communication paths… receive the task from … and for managing the task as it operates at…; a control loop for managing a process variable associated with… with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein… is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task; and a field application for receiving a delegation of a sub-task from… when the sub-task is required by the task, the field application capable of providing a notification to …when the sub-task is finished; wherein the task includes overriding the control loop… is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of a process variable; set the process variable to a specific value; and restore automatic control with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value (Claim 7).
These concepts are not meaningfully different than the following concepts identified by the MPEP:
Concepts relating to certain methods of organizing human activity. The aforementioned limitations describe steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Specifically, delegating tasks is considered to describe steps for following rules or instructions. As such, claims 1 and 7 recite concepts identified as abstract ideas.
The dependent claims recite limitations relative to the independent claims, including, for example:
…wherein … configured to generate one or more alerts at a specified time or a specified time interval, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves a timed reminder [Claim 2],
…wherein … configured to determining when the process variable reaches a target value, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves monitoring of a process variable associated with… [Claim 3],
…wherein … configured to ramping the process variable… towards a target value, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves ramping of a process variable associated with… [Claim 4],
…wherein … configured to sending a request to a field operator, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves dispatching field activities to the field operator. [Claim 6].
The limitations of these dependent claims are merely narrowing the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, and thus, the dependent claims also recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 7 only recite the following additional elements –
A device… comprising: an user interface; …a computing device including a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: causing the user interface to display GUI elements… wherein the processor communications with the user interface… a second device…; …the user interface…; …the processor…; …the processor…; ..the device… the second device, wherein the processor… the processor…; …the processor… (Claim 1),
A system …an HMI system… a second system; a computing device including a processor, wherein the processor communications with the HMI system… wherein the processor is configured to… the HMI system… the second system; …wherein the processor communicates… the processor…; … the processor… … the processor…; … the processor… (Claim 7).
The apparatus, interface and computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), like the following MPEP example:
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
Furthermore, the computer implemented element is considered to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), like the following MPEP example:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claims do not recite any new additional elements, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 7 and their underlying limitations, steps, features and terms, considered both individually and as a whole, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons:
Independent claims 1 and 7 only recite the following additional elements –
A device… comprising: an user interface; …a computing device including a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: causing the user interface to display GUI elements… wherein the processor communications with the user interface… a second device…; …the user interface…; …the processor…; …the processor…; ..the device… the second device, wherein the processor… the processor…; …the processor… (Claim 1),
A system …an HMI system… a second system; a computing device including a processor, wherein the processor communications with the HMI system… wherein the processor is configured to… the HMI system… the second system; …wherein the processor communicates… the processor…; … the processor… … the processor…; … the processor… (Claim 7).
These elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons discussed in 2A prong 2 with regard to MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(f). By the failure of the elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application there, the additional elements likewise fail to amount to an inventive concept that is significantly more than an abstract idea here, in Step 2B.
As such, both individually or in combination, these limitations do not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
The remaining dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims do not recite any new additional elements other than those mentioned in the independent claims, which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al., U.S. Publication No. 2020/0028691 [hereinafter Rao] in view of Kawalkar et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0216849 [hereinafter Kawalkar].
Regarding Claim 1, Rao discloses …A device for ad-hoc delegation of one or more tasks, comprising: an user interface (Rao, ¶ 110, The user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200. Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may include various human-to-machine interfaces, e.g., a keypad, keys, a keyboard, buttons, switches, knobs, a touchpad, a joystick, a pointing device, a virtual writing tablet, a touch screen, a microphone, or any device, component, or function that enables the user to select options, input information, or otherwise control the operation of the computing device 2200), (Id., ¶ 111, In certain embodiments, the user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200 via graphical elements rendered on a display element (e.g., the display device 2216). Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may initiate the creation, maintenance, and presentation of a graphical user interface (GUI). In certain embodiments, the display device 2216 implements touch-sensitive technology for purposes of interacting with the GUI. Thus, a user can manipulate the GUI by moving a cursor symbol rendered on the display device 2216, or by physically interacting with the display device 2216 itself for recognition and interpretation, via the user interface 2206);
communication paths (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like);
a computing device including a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: causing the user interface to display GUI elements associated with the one or more tasks, wherein the processor communicates with the user interface via a first communication path of the communication paths, wherein each of the one or more tasks comprising an action that involves a plurality of interactions with a second device (Rao, ¶ 105, FIG. 22 is a functional block diagram of a computing device related to the orchestrated activities for generating data of the TrustFlow blockchain network in accordance with an embodiment. It should be noted that the computing device 2200 can be implemented with the computing device 1002 depicted in FIG. 10. In this regard, the computing device 2200 shows certain elements and components of the computing device 1002 in more detail), (Id., ¶ 52, a TrustFlow Blockchain Network 400 is a blockchain network enabled to orchestrate and/or deploy a complex set of work procedures relating to maintenance tasks which can be distributed across specialized a set of TrustFlow network entities designated as trusted agents. The trusted agents have permissioned capabilities for interacting with manual/automated applications of the TrustFlow network. The Trusted Agents for example may include organizations 440 and users of the servers 420. The trusted agents will have established trustworthy digital identity as requirement to participate in the TrustFlow blockchain network 400. The trusted agents may also include automated applications hosted by servers 440 on onboard systems in an airplane that enable machine to machine communications, operators of portable devices 425 or applications/users associated with ground servers 427 (discloses device for ad hoc task delegation)), (Id., ¶ 86, (3) An operator initiates a workflow by invoking first activity by providing the required input), (Id., ¶ 87, (4) Data validation Engine (discloses task selection module) will validate (Tasks 1815) the role and inputs provided by the operator against the referenced work procedure. Upon successful validation, invokes Activity orchestration Engine by passing the hash of the work procedure template), (Id., ¶ 88, (5) Activity orchestration Engine creates (Tasks 1820) the Activity Token/Work Order and assigns it to the current operator. Activity orchestration Engine creates the Activity Token/Work Order (Table 1.0) and assigns it to the current operator), (Id., ¶ 66, The rule processing layer 720 processes a set of rules of smart contract executed by participants such as trusted agents in the TrustFlow blockchain network using a configured processor engine located remotely, locally, or at a server on the aircraft depending on how the network is configured. The rule processing layer 720 includes a workflow framework execute by a workflow engine 760, a data validation application 765, automated procedures 770, compliance validation applications 775, and reporting, recording and generation applications 780 as laid out by the smart contracts and configuration of the network. The rule processing of the workflow engine 760 ensures the automation and orchestration of the workflow of the various components of the processing pipeline. The workflow engine 760 includes activity interpreter engine 762 has a framework to execute deployed workflows including independent, dependent and disparate activities on the network. The activity interpreter engine 762 uses machine interpretable activity bytecodes to provide the following functionalities of: what is the input data required for current activity? for example, a needed input data such as an aircraft (A/C) tail number, a hardware part number (P/N) etc.; identifying which trusted agent or owner is responsible for a current activity or task? for example, identifying trusted agents of a mechanic, inspector, auditor etc.; upon completion of a current activity, validating the completed current activity is successful and triggering a start of a next or subsequent activity; for example, a subsequent activity after the completion of the following: removing the hardware from the aircraft, installing software, verify the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) etc. (discloses a plurality of interactions with a second system)), (Id., ¶ 100, The computing device 2102 may be implemented by any computing device that includes at least one processor, some form of memory hardware, a user interface, and communication hardware. For example, the computing device 2102 may be implemented using a personal computing device, such as a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, or the like. In this scenario, the computing device 2102 is capable of storing, maintaining, and executing an blockchain network applications associated with activities of clients and organizations for loading LSAP software updates with the aircraft 2106 systems), (Id., ¶ 111, In certain embodiments, the user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200 via graphical elements rendered on a display element (e.g., the display device 2216). Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may initiate the creation, maintenance, and presentation of a graphical user interface (GUI). In certain embodiments, the display device 2216 implements touch-sensitive technology for purposes of interacting with the GUI. Thus, a user can manipulate the GUI by moving a cursor symbol rendered on the display device 2216, or by physically interacting with the display device 2216 itself for recognition and interpretation, via the user interface 2206), (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like);
executing a task from the one or more tasks when an operator selects the task in the user interface (Id., ¶ 89, Activity interpreter Engine (discloses task execution module) executes (Tasks 1825) the corresponding activity from the work procedure i.e. Resident Client executes the corresponding function and BC node executes the associated smart contract), (Id., ¶ 93, (10) Automated procedures engine will automatically initiate (Tasks 1845) a work procedure, if configured. (discloses task selection) This engine is hosted entirely on Resident BC Client node. Based on the table configured (ex. See FIG. 19) in the Engine, the Resident Client will trigger (Tasks 1845) the activity per table), (Id., ¶ 100, The computing device 2102 may be implemented by any computing device that includes at least one processor, some form of memory hardware, a user interface, and communication hardware. For example, the computing device 2102 may be implemented using a personal computing device, such as a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, or the like. In this scenario, the computing device 2102 is capable of storing, maintaining, and executing an blockchain network applications associated with activities of clients and organizations for loading LSAP software updates with the aircraft 2106 systems), (Id., ¶ 111, In certain embodiments, the user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200 via graphical elements rendered on a display element (e.g., the display device 2216). Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may initiate the creation, maintenance, and presentation of a graphical user interface (GUI). In certain embodiments, the display device 2216 implements touch-sensitive technology for purposes of interacting with the GUI. Thus, a user can manipulate the GUI by moving a cursor symbol rendered on the display device 2216, (discloses selecting task elements in a GUI) or by physically interacting with the display device 2216 itself for recognition and interpretation, via the user interface 2206),
updating a status of the task while the task is executing in the processor (Id., ¶ 90, (7) Activity Verifier Engine verifies (Tasks 1830) the status of the executed activity, then formats the output data and triggers the required event, if any), (Id., ¶ 100, The computing device 2102 may be implemented by any computing device that includes at least one processor, some form of memory hardware, a user interface, and communication hardware. For example, the computing device 2102 may be implemented using a personal computing device, such as a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, or the like. In this scenario, the computing device 2102 is capable of storing, maintaining, and executing an blockchain network applications associated with activities of clients and organizations for loading LSAP software updates with the aircraft 2106 systems);
generating alerts for notifying the operator upon completion of the task by the processor (Id., ¶ 61, In various exemplary embodiments, a semi-automated installation procedure may be configured with a set of trusted agents and begins with the LSAP software parts installer publishing the service bulletin for review and applicability as well as notification to the maintenance manager. A request at task 610 may include the maintenance manager creating 612 the work order for the LSAP module installation and a selected work procedure is executed for the maintenance technician. A task 620 to ready the network may include the maintenance technician to trigger the software installation at the aircraft 622. A task 630 to authorize loading may include the aircraft notifying 632 the maintenance technician to trigger the loading process. A task 650 of completion may include the status 642 of the installation and a verification of the installation determined by the inspector and in turn a notification is sent that the installation is complete to the maintenance manager, (discloses notification of task completion) the pilot and the inspector views the report generated by the maintenance technician of the installation. Finally, when completed a block is created 452 to record the transaction in the distribution ledger at task 650), (Id., ¶ 95, (12) Report and records generation module generates (Tasks 1855) formatted digital record from the BC ledger information based on the configured record template. The generated records will have digital signatures created by this engine), (Id., ¶ 100, The computing device 2102 may be implemented by any computing device that includes at least one processor, some form of memory hardware, a user interface, and communication hardware. For example, the computing device 2102 may be implemented using a personal computing device, such as a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a smartphone, or the like. In this scenario, the computing device 2102 is capable of storing, maintaining, and executing an blockchain network applications associated with activities of clients and organizations for loading LSAP software updates with the aircraft 2106 systems);
While suggested in at least Fig. 2 and related text, Rao does not explicitly disclose …wherein the device further comprises a control loop for managing a process variable associated with the second device, wherein the processor communicates with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein the processor is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task; wherein when the task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable; setting the process variable to a specific value; and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value
However, Kawalkar discloses …wherein the device further comprises a control loop for managing a process variable associated with the second device, wherein the processor communicates with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein the processor is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task (Kawalkar, ¶ 10, In an exemplary embodiment, an adaptive system for confirming a status of at least one of an operator task and an automation task to an operator of a vehicle, comprises a device coupled to receive rendering commands and configured (discloses second device), upon receipt thereof, to render the status; a operational system configured to determine a parameter of an element of the vehicle; and a processor in operable communication (discloses second communication path) with the device and the system, the processor configured to selectively supply the rendering commands to the device that cause the device to simultaneously render operator tasks and automation tasks, wherein the operator tasks have been allocated for execution by the operator, the automation tasks have been allocated for execution by automation, and one of the operator tasks and automation tasks includes a range of values associated with the parameter; inform the operator of the completion of the rendered operator tasks and automation tasks; and inform the operator of the operator task or automation task that includes the value subsequent to being accomplished if the parameter is not within the range), (Id., ¶ 73, Operational variations are classified as “do-verify” and “challenge-response”, wherein annunciations may be visual or aural. In the do-verify method, the pilot performs all the memory items and verifies from a printed or displayed checklist that all items are covered and configured appropriately. The pilot may perform all his memory items and internally marks the items as ‘completed’ if that item is ‘closed-loop’, e.g., the platform can determine the underlying system's state. And when the checklist is manually or automatically displayed, the pilot would have to execute his incomplete/missed assigned items, which are visually emphasized (discloses control loop) (FIG. 2). Upon successful completion of the checklist, completion is annunciated, for example, “<Checklist Name> Complete”. Annunciation could also be for any grouping defined, or not used at all. Note that the pilot may initiate the challenge response to facilitate a head-up operation), (Id., ¶ 74, Conventionally, for the challenge-response method, the co-pilot reads out the checklist item by item, and the captain complies with the same. In the present invention, the captain executes the checklist using the challenge-response method to minimize workload involved in memory recall. In one exemplary embodiment, the captain calls out “Start <ChecklistName>”, and system responds by initiating the checklist and starts executing IIS assigned items. Each pilot assigned item (challenge) is annunciated sequentially and the pilot complies with the challenge (response). Either the pilot manually checks the item if the item is not closed loop, or the item is automatically checked if closed loop (discloses changing the processes variable when required by the task). Items may be accomplished simultaneously in some situations);
wherein when the task includes an action that involves overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of the process variable (Kawalkar, ¶ 96, The algorithm adapts to prevailing as well as historical non-normal situations to ensure most appropriate aircraft configuration for safe operations and reduced workload by adapting the checklist in following different ways. If one or more subsystems corresponding to checklist item(s) are inoperative, the corresponding checklist items are disabled or removed from the presented checklist. Additionally, the pilot may be notified of any deviation from the normal actions and given the reason why. The pilot can manually specify the algorithm to ignore the item by marking the checklist item, or the algorithm ignores it automatically (discloses overriding a control loop) if underlying systems are sufficiently deterministic. If prevailing or historical situations affect the desired/Target values, they are adapted to suit the prevailing situations. These adaptations are performed through a situation-parameter influence map as follows. Whenever the prescribed situations occur, the target values of corresponding checklist items are set to the limit values (for example));
setting the process variable to a specific value (Id., ¶ 74, Conventionally, for the challenge-response method, the co-pilot reads out the checklist item by item, and the captain complies with the same. In the present invention, the captain executes the checklist using the challenge-response method to minimize workload involved in memory recall. In one exemplary embodiment, the captain calls out “Start <ChecklistName>”, and system responds by initiating the checklist and starts executing IIS assigned items. Each pilot assigned item (challenge) is annunciated sequentially and the pilot complies with the challenge (response). Either the pilot manually checks the item if the item is not closed loop, or the item is automatically checked if closed loop (discloses setting the processes variable to a specific value (i.e. completed)). Items may be accomplished simultaneously in some situations);
and restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value (Id., ¶ 94, Error handling includes at least three types of errors: omission, commission, and configuration. In the case of an omission error, the situation assessor provides notification of the impending transition. If any of the safety critical checklist items is not completed, then an ‘Incomplete Checklist’ warning may be issued. For a commission error, if any of the checklist items (either IIS or pilot assigned) is set to a value other than desired value, then a warning is issued. In the case of a configuration error, if the erroneous checklist item is IIS assigned, then that item gets assigned to the pilot dynamically and the pilot is notified (discloses restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint of a second plurality of tasks reflecting a new operating value)), (Id., ¶ 99, Referring to FIG. 11, the method includes confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks (or procedure) for an adaptive system, comprising determining 1102 a parameter of the system; prompting 1104 on a display by a processor a plurality of first tasks to be performed by an operator; prompting 1106 on the display by the processor a plurality of second tasks to be performed automatically; modifying 1108 a format of each of the first and second tasks when performed, wherein one of the first and second tasks includes a desired value for the parameter; and prompting 1110 on the display by the processor the task having the value, the value, and the parameter associated therewith), (Id., ¶ 100, The system described herein preferably includes a display device that provides feedback regarding the confirmation of automated and operator tasks. It additionally supports shared task execution, and displays the progress of operator, automatic, and shared tasks. The information that is described above as being displayed on the display device is merely exemplary of one embodiment, and the system is not limited to the specifically described information. The system may be configured, in some embodiments, to not display some of the above-described information. The system may also be configured, in some embodiments, to display information in addition to that which was described above(discloses restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint of a second plurality of tasks reflecting a new operating value)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the task delegation elements of Rao to include the variable ramping and overriding elements of Kawalkar in the analogous art of confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks.
The motivation for doing so would have been to implement and improved system which “ provides a balanced usage of intelligent automation, pilot-automation task allocation, harmonized pilot-automation communication, and authority control levels that not only would reduce drawbacks and chances of human errors involved in traditional checklists, but also would provide elevated user experience of dealing with intelligent and rationally thinking flight automation systems with significantly improved operational efficiency” (Kawalkar, ¶ 42), wherein such improvements would benefit Rao’s method which seeks to “build… an efficient aircraft maintenance workflow, which cuts across the organization boundaries [and] is imperative for efficiency and cost savings” [Kawalkar, ¶ 42; Rao, ¶ 4].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 1…
Rao further discloses …wherein the processor is further configure to generating one or more alerts at a specified time or a specified time interval, wherein the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves a timed reminder (Rao, ¶ 53, The review agents are agents that review the outcome of the activities is verified by participating review agents (manual/automated Apps) based on review agent consensus. In an exemplary embodiment, review agents may be considered inspectors of a maintenance organization 430 who match the task outcome with the information in a service bulletin. The Tamper Proof Records 415: The outcome of the reviewed activity is stored in the shared distributed ledger. An Up-to-date Compliance 450 of compliance records 460 can be generated anytime in the digital format with appropriate digital signatures retrieved from the distributed ledger. The TrustFlow Tools: The deployable machine readable (TrustFlow engine) work activities are prepared using offline specialized tools), (Id., ¶ 52, In various exemplary embodiments, in FIG. 4 a core mechanism and set of attributes of the workflow maintenance process can be described as follows: a TrustFlow Blockchain Network 400 is a blockchain network enabled to orchestrate and/or deploy a complex set of work procedures relating to maintenance tasks which can be distributed across specialized a set of TrustFlow network entities designated as trusted agents. The trusted agents have permissioned capabilities for interacting with manual/automated applications of the TrustFlow network. The Trusted Agents for example may include organizations 440 and users of the servers 420. The trusted agents will have established trustworthy digital identity as requirement to participate in the TrustFlow blockchain network 400. The trusted agents may also include automated applications hosted by servers 440 on onboard systems in an airplane that enable machine to machine communications, operators of portable devices 425 or applications/users associated with ground servers 427), (Id., ¶ 61, In various exemplary embodiments, a semi-automated installation procedure may be configured with a set of trusted agents and begins with the LSAP software parts installer publishing the service bulletin for review and applicability as well as notification to the maintenance manager. A request at task 610 may include the maintenance manager creating 612 the work order for the LSAP module installation and a selected work procedure is executed for the maintenance technician. A task 620 to ready the network may include the maintenance technician to trigger the software installation at the aircraft 622. A task 630 to authorize loading may include the aircraft notifying 632 the maintenance technician to trigger the loading process. A task 650 of completion may include the status 642 of the installation and a verification of the installation determined by the inspector and in turn a notification is sent that the installation is complete to the maintenance manager, the pilot and the inspector views the report generated by the maintenance technician of the installation. Finally, when completed a block is created 452 to record the transaction in the distribution ledger at task 650), (Id., ¶ 96, FIG. 19 illustrates a configuration table 1900 for an automated procedure of the workflow engine in the maintenance flow of the TrustFlow blockchain network of orchestrated activities distributed about agents in accordance with an embodiment. The configuration table 1900 includes parameters 1910 of a work procedure, activity, time slot, recurrence, (discloses configurable timer) and “login in AS”. In an exemplary embodiment, a set of parameters 9210 includes work procedures (WP1, WP2); activities (Activity1, Activity2); Time Slots of 3 am to 4 am and Thursday 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM; recurrences of one time and weekly; and log-ins as a manager and technician (discloses generating alerts at specified time interval for tasks)).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 1…
Rao further discloses …wherein the processor is further configured to determining when the process variable reaches a target value, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves monitoring of a process variable associated with the second device. (Id., ¶ 106, The computing device 2200 generally includes, without limitation: at least one processor 2202; system memory 2204; a user interface 2206; a communication interface device 2208; LSAP loading module 2212; a blockchain ledger module 2214 and a display device 2216. These elements and features of the computing device 2200 may be operatively associated with one another, coupled to one another, or otherwise configured to cooperate with one another as needed to support the desired functionality—in particular, the distributed ledger is used to obtain the digital service record into a first block of the blockchain ledger in the blockchain ledger module 2214 and to initiate at least one loading and installing activity performed upon the software embedded in the aircraft to effect updating using the distributable software code and to insert into the distributed ledger of the blockchain ledger module 2214 of a second block of the blockchain storing a record of loading and installing activity by the LSAP loading module 2212 is performed), (Id., ¶ 67, In various exemplary embodiments, coupled to the activity interpreter engine 762 is an activity verifier engine 764 for executing data validation applications 765, compliance validations 775, and other automated procedures 770. The activity verifier engine 764 has a framework to execute verification rules (i.e. defined by smart contracts) for corresponding tasks/activities on the TrustFlow blockchain network. This activity verifier engine 764 uses the machine interpretable verification bytecodes to provide the following functionalities of, as an example: How many nodes are required to approve the activity? (discloses validation task of determining when a variable number of approval nodes reaches the target value); What is the validation mechanisms to be applied?; Does a part number entered manually by a technician match with a part number found on a service bulletin?), (Id., ¶ 61, In various exemplary embodiments, a semi-automated installation procedure may be configured with a set of trusted agents and begins with the LSAP software parts installer publishing the service bulletin for review and applicability as well as notification to the maintenance manager. A request at task 610 may include the maintenance manager creating 612 the work order for the LSAP module installation and a selected work procedure is executed for the maintenance technician. A task 620 to ready the network may include the maintenance technician to trigger the software installation at the aircraft 622. A task 630 to authorize loading may include the aircraft notifying 632 the maintenance technician to trigger the loading process. A task 650 of completion may include the status 642 of the installation and a verification of the installation determined by the inspector and in turn a notification is sent that the installation is complete to the maintenance manager, the pilot and the inspector views the report generated by the maintenance technician of the installation. Finally, when completed a block is created 452 to record the transaction in the distribution ledger at task 650), (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 1…
While suggested in at least Fig. 2 and related text, Rao does not explicitly disclose …wherein the processor is further configured to ramping the process variable towards a target value, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves ramping of a process variable associated with the second device.
However, Kawalkar discloses …wherein the processor is further configured to ramping the process variable towards a target value, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves ramping of a process variable associated with the second device (Kawalkar, ¶ 61, Track of IIS and pilot assigned checklist items, or tasks, are maintained for their desired/target values as prescribed during design time or adapted to the current situation. If the actual value does not match desired values, a commission error is raised. For example, referring to the display 600 of FIG. 6, the task N1 602 has been completed; however, the value is 60 whereas the desired value is 70), (Id., ¶ 62, In one exemplary embodiment, this commission error is recognized and if a predetermined authority is established, the processor sends a command instruction wherein the flaps are automatically set to 70 (without manual intervention) (discloses ramping a variable towards a target value)), (Id., ¶ 57, FIG. 2 is one example of a display 200 of pilot assigned tasks 201 and IIS assigned tasks 202. IIS assigned tasks 202 are executed automatically and their status is visually presented to the pilot by a modification in format from the uncompleted task, e.g., ICE PROTECTION 203 (incomplete) to ERROR/FLAGS 204 (complete). Similarly, the pilot assigned tasks 201 change format in a similar manner when completed, e.g., INERTIAL SEPARATOR 205 (incomplete) to SHAKER/PUSHER 206 (complete). A change in a displayed format includes any visual change, for example, a change in size, color, font, and may include deletion), (Id., ¶ 86, The checklist manager 1003 acts on the situation assessor's 1001 commands and evaluates which checklist should be initiated and if there are any omission and commission errors. This component manages the lifecycle of the checklist from initiation, execution, logical completion, handling of commission and omission errors, as well as performs adaptations based upon dynamic situations, for example, excluding the checklist item and changing desired/target value. This checklist manager 1003 also handles interaction events issued by pilot to initiate (challenge-response) and navigate through the checklist and check, uncheck and ignore checklist items).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the task delegation elements of Rao to include the variable ramping and overriding elements of Kawalkar in the analogous art of confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks for the same reasons as stated in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 1…
Rao further discloses …wherein the processor is further configured to sending a request to a field operator, when the operator selects a new task which includes an action that involves dispatching field activities to the field operator (Rao, ¶ 6, In various embodiments, the system includes: the workflow engine configured to access a plurality of administrative tools to convert a set of verification rules to a machine readable format for processing by the activity interpreter processing engine and activity verifier processing engine to manage maintenance activities of a trusted agent of each validation entity), (Id., ¶ 9, The system, further includes: a set of inter-task functions deployed by the activity interpreter engine for at least each scheduled current activity which include: a remote loading of loadable software aircraft parts (LSAP) with multiple tasks associated with each maintenance procedure. The trust agent is at least one or more of a set of trusted agents for accessing the blockchain network which includes: a repository, an aircraft server, a maintenance mechanic, an inspector, (discloses task for dispatching field mechanics and inspectors) a maintenance facility, an aircraft owner, an OEM, and a regulator), (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like).
Regarding Claim 7, Rao discloses …A system for ad-hoc delegation of one or more tasks, comprising: an HMI system for accepting input from a user to delegate a task, the task being associated with a second system (Rao, ¶ 110, The user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200. Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may include various human-to-machine interfaces (discloses HMI system), e.g., a keypad, keys, a keyboard, buttons, switches, knobs, a touchpad, a joystick, a pointing device, a virtual writing tablet, a touch screen, a microphone, or any device, component, or function that enables the user to select options, input information, or otherwise control the operation of the computing device 2200), (Id., ¶ 112, The communication interface device 2208 is suitably configured to communicate data between the computing device 2200 and one or more remote servers and one or more avionics systems onboard an aircraft);
communication paths (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like);
a computing device including a processor, wherein the processor communicates with the HMI system via a first communication path of the communication paths, wherein the processor is configured to receive the task from the HMI system and for managing the task as it operates at the second system (Id., ¶ 110, The user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200. Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may include various human-to-machine interfaces (discloses HMI system), e.g., a keypad, keys, a keyboard, buttons, switches, knobs, a touchpad, a joystick, a pointing device, a virtual writing tablet, a touch screen, a microphone, or any device, component, or function that enables the user to select options, input information, or otherwise control the operation of the computing device 2200), (Id., ¶ 89, Activity interpreter Engine (discloses task execution engine) executes (Tasks 1825) the corresponding activity from the work procedure i.e. Resident Client executes the corresponding function and BC node executes the associated smart contract), (Id., ¶ 116, When implemented in software or firmware, various elements of the systems described herein are essentially the code segments or instructions that perform the various tasks. The program or code segments can be stored in a processor-readable medium or transmitted by a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave over a transmission medium or communication path. The “computer-readable medium”, “processor-readable medium”, or “machine-readable medium” may include any medium that can store or transfer information. Examples of the processor-readable medium include an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a ROM, a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy diskette, a CD-ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, a fiber optic medium, a radio frequency (RF) link, or the like. The computer data signal may include any signal that can propagate over a transmission medium such as electronic network channels, optical fibers, air, electromagnetic paths, or RF links. The code segments may be downloaded via computer networks such as the Internet, an intranet, a LAN, or the like), (Id., ¶ 93, (10) Automated procedures engine will automatically initiate (Tasks 1845) a work procedure, if configured. This engine is hosted entirely on Resident BC Client node. Based on the table configured (ex. See FIG. 19) in the Engine, the Resident Client will trigger (Tasks 1845) the activity per table);
and a field application for receiving a delegation of a sub-task from the processor, when the sub-task is required by the task, the field application capable of providing a notification to the processor when the sub-task is finished (Id., ¶ 66, The rule processing layer 720 processes a set of rules of smart contract executed by participants such as trusted agents in the TrustFlow blockchain network using a configured processor engine located remotely, locally, or at a server on the aircraft depending on how the network is configured. The rule processing layer 720 includes a workflow framework execute by a workflow engine 760, a data validation application 765, automated procedures 770, compliance validation applications 775, and reporting, recording and generation applications 780 as laid out by the smart contracts and configuration of the network. The rule processing of the workflow engine 760 ensures the automation and orchestration of the workflow of the various components of the processing pipeline. The workflow engine 760 includes activity interpreter engine 762 has a framework to execute deployed workflows including independent, dependent and disparate activities on the network. The activity interpreter engine 762 uses machine interpretable activity bytecodes to provide the following functionalities of: what is the input data required for current activity? for example, a needed input data such as an aircraft (A/C) tail number, a hardware part number (P/N) etc.; identifying which trusted agent or owner is responsible for a current activity or task? for example, identifying trusted agents of a mechanic, inspector, auditor etc.; upon completion of a current activity, validating the completed current activity is successful and triggering a start of a next or subsequent activity; for example, a subsequent activity after the completion of the following: removing the hardware from the aircraft, installing software, verify the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) etc.), (Id., ¶ 41, In various exemplary embodiments, the present disclosure describes a Certifiable Trusted Workflow Automation process. In various exemplary embodiments, the present disclosure describes: a private permissioned blockchain network, a set of configurable Network rules within the blockchain network to enable a set of deployable workflow contracts based on trusted elements like Service bulletins, a set of task transactions based on workflow contracts, which ensure an automated tamper proof record generation of sub task.), (Id., ¶ 89, Activity interpreter Engine (discloses task execution engine) executes (Tasks 1825) the corresponding activity from the work procedure i.e. Resident Client executes the corresponding function and BC node executes the associated smart contract), (Id., ¶ 93, (10) Automated procedures engine will automatically initiate (Tasks 1845) a work procedure, if configured. This engine is hosted entirely on Resident BC Client node. Based on the table configured (ex. See FIG. 19) in the Engine, the Resident Client will trigger (Tasks 1845) the activity per table);
While suggested in at least Fig. 2 and related text, Rao does not explicitly disclose …a control loop for managing a process variable associated with the second system, wherein the processor communicates with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein the processor is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task; wherein the task includes overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of a process variable; set the process variable to a specific value; and restore automatic control with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value.
However, Kawalkar discloses … a control loop for managing a process variable associated with the second system, wherein the processor communicates with the control loop via a second communication path of the communication path, wherein the processor is capable of changing the process variable when required by the task (Kawalkar, ¶ 10, In an exemplary embodiment, an adaptive system for confirming a status of at least one of an operator task and an automation task to an operator of a vehicle, comprises a device coupled to receive rendering commands and configured (discloses second device), upon receipt thereof, to render the status; a operational system configured to determine a parameter of an element of the vehicle; and a processor in operable communication (discloses second communication path) with the device and the system, the processor configured to selectively supply the rendering commands to the device that cause the device to simultaneously render operator tasks and automation tasks, wherein the operator tasks have been allocated for execution by the operator, the automation tasks have been allocated for execution by automation, and one of the operator tasks and automation tasks includes a range of values associated with the parameter; inform the operator of the completion of the rendered operator tasks and automation tasks; and inform the operator of the operator task or automation task that includes the value subsequent to being accomplished if the parameter is not within the range), (Id., ¶ 73, Operational variations are classified as “do-verify” and “challenge-response”, wherein annunciations may be visual or aural. In the do-verify method, the pilot performs all the memory items and verifies from a printed or displayed checklist that all items are covered and configured appropriately. The pilot may perform all his memory items and internally marks the items as ‘completed’ if that item is ‘closed-loop’, e.g., the platform can determine the underlying system's state. And when the checklist is manually or automatically displayed, the pilot would have to execute his incomplete/missed assigned items, which are visually emphasized (discloses control loop) (FIG. 2). Upon successful completion of the checklist, completion is annunciated, for example, “<Checklist Name> Complete”. Annunciation could also be for any grouping defined, or not used at all. Note that the pilot may initiate the challenge response to facilitate a head-up operation), (Id., ¶ 74, Conventionally, for the challenge-response method, the co-pilot reads out the checklist item by item, and the captain complies with the same. In the present invention, the captain executes the checklist using the challenge-response method to minimize workload involved in memory recall. In one exemplary embodiment, the captain calls out “Start <ChecklistName>”, and system responds by initiating the checklist and starts executing IIS assigned items. Each pilot assigned item (challenge) is annunciated sequentially and the pilot complies with the challenge (response). Either the pilot manually checks the item if the item is not closed loop, or the item is automatically checked if closed loop (discloses changing the processes variable when required by the task). Items may be accomplished simultaneously in some situations);
wherein the task includes overriding the control loop, the processor is further configured to cause the control loop to: disable automatic control of a process variable (Kawalkar, ¶ 96, The algorithm adapts to prevailing as well as historical non-normal situations to ensure most appropriate aircraft configuration for safe operations and reduced workload by adapting the checklist in following different ways. If one or more subsystems corresponding to checklist item(s) are inoperative, the corresponding checklist items are disabled or removed from the presented checklist. Additionally, the pilot may be notified of any deviation from the normal actions and given the reason why. The pilot can manually specify the algorithm to ignore the item by marking the checklist item, or the algorithm ignores it automatically (discloses overriding a control loop) if underlying systems are sufficiently deterministic. If prevailing or historical situations affect the desired/Target values, they are adapted to suit the prevailing situations. These adaptations are performed through a situation-parameter influence map as follows. Whenever the prescribed situations occur, the target values of corresponding checklist items are set to the limit values (for example));
set the process variable to a specific value (Id., ¶ 74, Conventionally, for the challenge-response method, the co-pilot reads out the checklist item by item, and the captain complies with the same. In the present invention, the captain executes the checklist using the challenge-response method to minimize workload involved in memory recall. In one exemplary embodiment, the captain calls out “Start <ChecklistName>”, and system responds by initiating the checklist and starts executing IIS assigned items. Each pilot assigned item (challenge) is annunciated sequentially and the pilot complies with the challenge (response). Either the pilot manually checks the item if the item is not closed loop, or the item is automatically checked if closed loop (discloses setting the processes variable to a specific value (i.e. completed)). Items may be accomplished simultaneously in some situations);
and restore automatic control with a new setpoint reflecting a new operating value (Id., ¶ 94, Error handling includes at least three types of errors: omission, commission, and configuration. In the case of an omission error, the situation assessor provides notification of the impending transition. If any of the safety critical checklist items is not completed, then an ‘Incomplete Checklist’ warning may be issued. For a commission error, if any of the checklist items (either IIS or pilot assigned) is set to a value other than desired value, then a warning is issued. In the case of a configuration error, if the erroneous checklist item is IIS assigned, then that item gets assigned to the pilot dynamically and the pilot is notified (discloses restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint of a second plurality of tasks reflecting a new operating value)), (Id., ¶ 99, Referring to FIG. 11, the method includes confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks (or procedure) for an adaptive system, comprising determining 1102 a parameter of the system; prompting 1104 on a display by a processor a plurality of first tasks to be performed by an operator; prompting 1106 on the display by the processor a plurality of second tasks to be performed automatically; modifying 1108 a format of each of the first and second tasks when performed, wherein one of the first and second tasks includes a desired value for the parameter; and prompting 1110 on the display by the processor the task having the value, the value, and the parameter associated therewith), (Id., ¶ 100, The system described herein preferably includes a display device that provides feedback regarding the confirmation of automated and operator tasks. It additionally supports shared task execution, and displays the progress of operator, automatic, and shared tasks. The information that is described above as being displayed on the display device is merely exemplary of one embodiment, and the system is not limited to the specifically described information. The system may be configured, in some embodiments, to not display some of the above-described information. The system may also be configured, in some embodiments, to display information in addition to that which was described above(discloses restoring automatic control of the process variable with a new setpoint of a second plurality of tasks reflecting a new operating value)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the task delegation elements of Rao to include the variable ramping and overriding elements of Kawalkar in the analogous art of confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks for the same reasons as stated for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 7…
Rao further discloses …wherein the task includes an action that involves a plurality of interactions with the second system (Rao, ¶ 86, (3) An operator initiates a workflow by invoking first activity by providing the required input), (Id., ¶ 87, (4) Data validation Engine (discloses task selection module) will validate (Tasks 1815) the role and inputs provided by the operator against the referenced work procedure. Upon successful validation, invokes Activity orchestration Engine by passing the hash of the work procedure template), (Id., ¶ 88, (5) Activity orchestration Engine creates (Tasks 1820) the Activity Token/Work Order and assigns it to the current operator. Activity orchestration Engine creates the Activity Token/Work Order (Table 1.0) and assigns it to the current operator), (Id., ¶ 66, The rule processing layer 720 processes a set of rules of smart contract executed by participants such as trusted agents in the TrustFlow blockchain network using a configured processor engine located remotely, locally, or at a server on the aircraft depending on how the network is configured. The rule processing layer 720 includes a workflow framework execute by a workflow engine 760, a data validation application 765, automated procedures 770, compliance validation applications 775, and reporting, recording and generation applications 780 as laid out by the smart contracts and configuration of the network. The rule processing of the workflow engine 760 ensures the automation and orchestration of the workflow of the various components of the processing pipeline. The workflow engine 760 includes activity interpreter engine 762 has a framework to execute deployed workflows including independent, dependent and disparate activities on the network. The activity interpreter engine 762 uses machine interpretable activity bytecodes to provide the following functionalities of: what is the input data required for current activity? for example, a needed input data such as an aircraft (A/C) tail number, a hardware part number (P/N) etc.; identifying which trusted agent or owner is responsible for a current activity or task? for example, identifying trusted agents of a mechanic, inspector, auditor etc.; upon completion of a current activity, validating the completed current activity is successful and triggering a start of a next or subsequent activity; for example, a subsequent activity after the completion of the following: removing the hardware from the aircraft, installing software, verify the cyclic redundancy check (CRC) etc. (discloses a plurality of interactions with a second system));
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 8…
While suggested in at least Fig. 2 and related text, Rao does not explicitly disclose …wherein the plurality of interactions include a ramping of the process variable associated with the second system.
However, Kawalkar discloses …wherein the plurality of interactions include a ramping of the process variable associated with the second system (Kawalkar, ¶ 61, Track of IIS and pilot assigned checklist items, or tasks, are maintained for their desired/target values as prescribed during design time or adapted to the current situation. If the actual value does not match desired values, a commission error is raised. For example, referring to the display 600 of FIG. 6, the task N1 602 has been completed; however, the value is 60 whereas the desired value is 70), (Id., ¶ 62, In one exemplary embodiment, this commission error is recognized and if a predetermined authority is established, the processor sends a command instruction wherein the flaps are automatically set to 70 (without manual intervention) (discloses ramping a variable towards a target value)), (Id., ¶ 57, FIG. 2 is one example of a display 200 of pilot assigned tasks 201 and IIS assigned tasks 202. IIS assigned tasks 202 are executed automatically and their status is visually presented to the pilot by a modification in format from the uncompleted task, e.g., ICE PROTECTION 203 (incomplete) to ERROR/FLAGS 204 (complete). Similarly, the pilot assigned tasks 201 change format in a similar manner when completed, e.g., INERTIAL SEPARATOR 205 (incomplete) to SHAKER/PUSHER 206 (complete). A change in a displayed format includes any visual change, for example, a change in size, color, font, and may include deletion), (Id., ¶ 86, The checklist manager 1003 (discloses ramping module) acts on the situation assessor's 1001 commands and evaluates which checklist should be initiated and if there are any omission and commission errors. This component manages the lifecycle of the checklist from initiation, execution, logical completion, handling of commission and omission errors, as well as performs adaptations based upon dynamic situations, for example, excluding the checklist item and changing desired/target value. This checklist manager 1003 also handles interaction events issued by pilot to initiate (challenge-response) and navigate through the checklist and check, uncheck and ignore checklist items).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the task delegation elements of Rao to include the variable ramping and overriding elements of Kawalkar in the analogous art of confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks for the same reasons as stated for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 8…
Rao further discloses …wherein the plurality of interactions include a monitoring of the process variable associated with the second system (Rao, ¶ 53, The review agents are agents that review the outcome of the activities is verified by participating review agents (manual/automated Apps) based on review agent consensus. In an exemplary embodiment, review agents may be considered inspectors of a maintenance organization 430 who match the task outcome with the information in a service bulletin. The Tamper Proof Records 415: The outcome of the reviewed activity is stored in the shared distributed ledger. An Up-to-date Compliance 450 of compliance records 460 can be generated anytime in the digital format with appropriate digital signatures retrieved from the distributed ledger. The TrustFlow Tools: The deployable machine readable (TrustFlow engine) work activities are prepared using offline specialized tools), (Id., ¶ 96, FIG. 19 illustrates a configuration table 1900 for an automated procedure of the workflow engine in the maintenance flow of the TrustFlow blockchain network of orchestrated activities distributed about agents in accordance with an embodiment. The configuration table 1900 includes parameters 1910 of a work procedure, activity, time slot, recurrence, and “login in AS”. In an exemplary embodiment, a set of parameters 9210 includes work procedures (WP1, WP2); activities (Activity1, Activity2); Time Slots of 3 am to 4 am and Thursday 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM; recurrences of one time and weekly; and log-ins as a manager and technician).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 8…
Rao further discloses …wherein the plurality of interactions include a dispatching associated with a field application system associated with the second system (Rao, ¶ 6, In various embodiments, the system includes: the workflow engine (discloses dispatching module) configured to access a plurality of administrative tools to convert a set of verification rules to a machine readable format for processing by the activity interpreter processing engine and activity verifier processing engine to manage maintenance activities of a trusted agent of each validation entity), (Id., ¶ 9, The system, further includes: a set of inter-task functions deployed by the activity interpreter engine for at least each scheduled current activity which include: a remote loading of loadable software aircraft parts (LSAP) with multiple tasks associated with each maintenance procedure. The trust agent is at least one or more of a set of trusted agents for accessing the blockchain network which includes: a repository, an aircraft server, a maintenance mechanic, an inspector, (discloses field operators) a maintenance facility, an aircraft owner, an OEM, and a regulator).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 8…
Rao further discloses …wherein the HMI system further includes one or more user interface elements (Rao, ¶ 110, The user interface 2206 may include or cooperate with various features to allow a user to interact with the computing device 2200. Accordingly, the user interface 2206 may include various human-to-machine interfaces, e.g., a keypad, keys, a keyboard, buttons, switches, knobs, a touchpad, a joystick, a pointing device, a virtual writing tablet, a touch screen, a microphone, or any device, component, or function that enables the user to select options, input information, or otherwise control the operation of the computing device 2200).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The system of claim 13…
While suggested in at least Fig. 2 and related text, Rao does not explicitly disclose …wherein a first user interface element is associated with a first task and a second user interface element is associated with a second task.
However, Kawalkar discloses …wherein a first user interface element is associated with a first task and a second user interface element is associated with a second task (Kawalkar, ¶ 57, FIG. 2 is one example of a display 200 of pilot assigned tasks 201 and IIS assigned tasks 202. IIS assigned tasks 202 are executed automatically and their status is visually presented to the pilot by a modification in format from the uncompleted task, e.g., ICE PROTECTION 203 (incomplete) to ERROR/FLAGS 204 (complete). Similarly, the pilot assigned tasks 201 change format in a similar manner when completed, e.g., INERTIAL SEPARATOR 205 (incomplete) to SHAKER/PUSHER 206 (complete). A change in a displayed format includes any visual change, for example, a change in size, color, font, and may include deletion).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the task delegation elements of Rao to include the interface elements of Kawalkar in the analogous art of confirming a status of a plurality of identified tasks for the same reasons as stated for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 1…
Rao further discloses …wherein the user interface further comprising: an area associated with a presentation of information, the area having at least two dimensions; one or more rows in the area, the rows extending in a first dimension, wherein successive rows correspond to successive periods of time; one or more columns in the area, the columns extending in a second dimension, wherein each column corresponds to the second device that is capable of receiving a delegation of the task; and a visual indicator associated with the task, wherein the visual indicator is shown at an intersection of one of the rows and one of the columns (Rao, ¶ 57, FIG. 2 is one example of a display 200 of pilot assigned tasks 201 and IIS assigned tasks 202. (discloses interface with columns corresponding to systems capable of receiving a delegation of a task, and with successive rows for tasks to be completed in sequential periods of time) IIS assigned tasks 202 are executed automatically and their status is visually presented to the pilot by a modification in format from the uncompleted task, e.g., ICE PROTECTION 203 (incomplete) to ERROR/FLAGS 204 (complete). Similarly, the pilot assigned tasks 201 change format in a similar manner when completed, e.g., INERTIAL SEPARATOR 205 (incomplete) to SHAKER/PUSHER 206 (complete). A change in a displayed format includes any visual change, for example, a change in size, color, font, and may include deletion), (Id., ¶ 59, If there is a new checklist corresponding to a new flight phase, the missed items from the previous checklist are seamlessly integrated in the new checklist with higher priority. For example, FIG. 4 illustrates the display 400 having the task EXT POWER 402, uncompleted from the previous tasks, inserted and highlighted in the tasks of the new list), (Id., ¶ 26, Those of skill in the art will appreciate that the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and algorithm steps described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both. Some of the embodiments and implementations are described above in terms of functional and/or logical block components (or modules) and various processing steps. However, it should be appreciated that such block components (or modules) may be realized by any number of hardware, software, and/or firmware components configured to perform the specified functions. To clearly illustrate this interchangeability of hardware and software, various illustrative components, blocks, modules, circuits, and steps have been described above generally in terms of their functionality. Whether such functionality is implemented as hardware or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. Skilled artisans may implement the described functionality in varying ways for each particular application, but such implementation decisions should not be interpreted as causing a departure from the scope of the present invention. For example, an embodiment of a system or a component may employ various integrated circuit components, e.g., memory elements, digital signal processing elements, logic elements, look-up tables, or the like, which may carry out a variety of functions under the control of one or more microprocessors or other control devices. In addition, those skilled in the art will appreciate that embodiments described herein are merely exemplary implementations), (Id., Fig 4, Figure depicts a visual indicator at the intersection of one row and one column).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 15…
Kawalkar further discloses …wherein the visual indicator further comprises a plurality of icons wherein each of one of the icons is associated with the task (Kawalkar, ¶ 37, The display device 104 is coupled to receive output rendering display commands from the processor 106 and is configured, in response to the commands, to render (display) various images and data, in a graphic, iconic, (discloses interface icons associated with the task) and a textual format. It will be appreciated that the display device 104 may include a display processor 128, such as a graphics processing unit, to implement this function. It will additionally be appreciated that the functions of the display processor 128 may reside in, and thus be implemented by, processor 106. The display device 104 may be implemented using any one of numerous known displays suitable for rendering graphic, iconic, and/or text data in a format viewable by the operator 110. Non-limiting examples of such displays include various cathode ray tube (CRT) displays, and various flat panel displays, such as various types of LCD (liquid crystal display), TFT (thin film transistor) displays, and OLED (organic light emitting diode) displays. The display device 104 may additionally be based on a panel mounted display, a HUD projection, or any known technology. In an exemplary embodiment, display device 104 includes a panel display. It is further noted that the system 100 could be implemented with numerous other display devices, in addition to the depicted display device 104), (Id., ¶ 39, The processor 106, based on one or more of the determined states of the operator 110, the aircraft, and the aircraft mission, adaptively and dynamically allocates various tasks to be performed by the operator 110 alone, by automation alone, or by both the operator 110 and automation. Based on these adaptive task allocations, the processor 106 at least selectively supplies image rendering display commands to the display device 104 that cause the display device 104 to render images representative of the task allocations. Particular representations of images that may be rendered by the display device 104 are depicted in FIGS. 2-9, and with reference thereto will now be described).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 15…
Kawalkar further discloses …wherein the interface is a human-machine interface (Kawalkar, ¶ 36, Referring to FIG. 1, a functional block diagram of an example embodiment of at least a portion of an adaptive automation system 100 is depicted. The depicted system 100 includes at least a plurality of data sources 102, a display device 104, and a processor 106. The data sources 102 may vary in type and number, but in the depicted embodiment include various avionic systems. Some non-limiting examples of avionic systems that may comprise the data sources 102 include communication systems 108, navigation and guidance systems 112, flight management systems 116, sensors and indicators 118, weather systems 122, and various user interfaces 124 to assist an operator 110 in implementing control, monitoring, communication, and navigation functions of the aircraft. While a display device 104 is included in the exemplary embodiment as an output device for providing a preferred visual output, other output devices could be used to provide other an output other than visual. Examples include rendering audio and tactile commands).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 15…
Kawalkar further discloses …further comprising a second area having a conversational interface associated with the information (Id., ¶ 57, FIG. 2 is one example of a display 200 of pilot assigned tasks 201 and IIS assigned tasks 202. IIS assigned tasks 202 are executed automatically and their status is visually presented to the pilot by a modification in format from the uncompleted task, e.g., ICE PROTECTION 203 (incomplete) to ERROR/FLAGS 204 (complete). (discloses conversational interface area) Similarly, the pilot assigned tasks 201 change format in a similar manner when completed, e.g., INERTIAL SEPARATOR 205 (incomplete) to SHAKER/PUSHER 206 (complete). A change in a displayed format includes any visual change, for example, a change in size, color, font, and may include deletion).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 15…
Kawalkar further discloses …further comprising a third area capable of receiving an alert (Id., ¶ 58, The algorithm keeps track of checklist items that ‘should be’ and ‘must be’ completed based upon the prevailing situation and situational relevance. If a checklist item is ‘must be’ completed before the aircraft goes in to flight phase, before which the item should have been completed (an omission) by the pilot, an ‘Incomplete Checklist’ Warning 302 is displayed (discloses interface alert area) on the display 300 (see FIG. 3)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Rao and Kawalkar discloses …The device of claim 15…
Kawalkar further discloses …wherein the alert is associated with a task completion or a task status (Kawalkar, ¶ 58, The algorithm keeps track of checklist items that ‘should be’ and ‘must be’ completed based upon the prevailing situation and situational relevance. If a checklist item is ‘must be’ completed before the aircraft goes in to flight phase, before which the item should have been completed (an omission) by the pilot, an ‘Incomplete Checklist’ Warning 302 is displayed (discloses interface alert area for task status) on the display 300 (see FIG. 3)).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Montgomery, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0172625 discloses a virtual workspace for project management coordination.
Flaxer et al., U.S. Publication No. 2004/0162741 discloses a method and apparatus for product lifecycle management in a distributed environment enabled by dynamic business process composition and execution by rule inference.
Wyatt et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,175,698 discloses automatic flight control systems and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D BOLEN whose telephone number is (408)918-7631. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PST.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/NICHOLAS D BOLEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624