CTNF 18/318,908 CTNF 97661 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims • This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/318,908 filed on 05/17/2023. • Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. • This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Remarks and Amendment” filed on 05/08/2026 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold, wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value. The Applicants pointed out that “ Support for the amendments to claims 1, 10 and 20 can be found at least in paragraph [0021] and Fig. 1” (See Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, filed on 05/08/2026) However, this amended limitation is not part of the original disclosure , the specification in paragraph [0021] and Fig. 1 does not describe or depict the amended claim feature of “ wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value ”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-9, 11-19 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 and 10 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1) and Pelton (US20090048689A1) . Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 20 : Wilkins teaches: A method comprising: obtaining, at one or more processors, trajectory data associated with an aircraft operating in a manual flight mode ; ( Wilkins , Col.3, lines 51-52, “ generate a flight path ”, Col.16, line 35, “representation of the current flight path ” and Col.2, line 11, “a pilot to make flight adjustments”, Col.9, lines 53-54 ,” a computer or other suitable processor ”) obtaining, at the one or more processors, trajectory guidance data from a flight director system of the aircraft, wherein the flight director system generates the trajectory guidance data based on one or more trajectory setpoints ;( Wilkins , claim 21, “ generate … desired flight path ”, Col.16, lines 66-67, “A flight plan is a sequenced collection of waypoints ”) determining, at the one or more processors, an error value indicating deviation between the trajectory data and the trajectory guidance data ; ( Wilkins , Col.16, lines 6-11, “The Flight Plan Manager component 300 also provides for calculating tunnel relative ownship state information for airframe consumption. This information includes, but is not limited to, shortest horizontal distance from the tunnel to the ownship (i.e., Horizontal Error) , the vertical distance from the tunnel to the ownship (i.e., Altitude Error) ”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Irwin teaches: determining, at the one or more processors, a gain value to be applied to the error value based on a gain schedule, wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values based on the error value; ( Irwin , para[15],” a variable gain applied to a rate error ”, and para[32], “the variable gain 88 is determined based on a variable gain schedule ”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error r err of the machine 10 ”) generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for a first actuator of one or more actuators, the first actuator associated with one or more control surfaces of the aircraft; ( Irwin , para[04],” The control system further is caused to determines an actuation command based on the variable gain ”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error r err of the machine 10… a total actuator position δ.sub.TOT of the one or more inline actuators 32 is d etermined in part based on the variable gain 88 applied to the rate error ”, para [29], “the inline actuator 32 manipulates or moves one or more of the control effector devices 18 and thereby acts to control one or more direction of movement of the machine 10”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Irwin in order to include determining, based on a gain schedule, a gain to be applied to the error metric to generate a flight director assist output signal and generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for a first actuator of one or more actuators, the first actuator associated with one or more control surfaces of the aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Irwin ’s control system as “improve the controllability and/or stability” (Irwin, Description). Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches: determining, at the one or more processors, that the error value is greater than an upper bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system; ( Pelton , para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold ”, claim 1, “A method for monitoring an actuator for a control surface on an aircraft ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold, ( Pelton , para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold ”, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value . ( Pelton , para[38],” A fault is set if any exceedance count... is greater than a threshold… This fault may be used to disable the failed control system ”, and para [70], “a failed state in control actuator 604 may be used to initiate control of the control surface with a backup control actuator ”) Examiner note: Pelton teaches a fault indication is used to disable the flight control assistant system and the faut indication is independent of the error signal. Pelton also teaches a failed state in control actuator may be used to initiate control of the control surface with a backup control actuator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include determining, at the one or more processors, that the error value is greater than an upper bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system, and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold, wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton ’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description). Regarding Claims 2 and 11 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising sending the control signal to the one or more actuators to cause movement of the one or more control surfaces .( Wilkins , Col.9, lines 33-40, “ The aircraft/flight control system 256 translates cockpit flight control position commands (e.g., longitudinal/lateral stick, pedals, thrust control lever (TCL), and nacelle thumbwheel commands or actions) into nacelle, rotor control (e.g., longitudinal/lateral cyclic and symmetric/differential collective pitch) and control surface (e.g., elevator, flaperon, and rudder) position commands necessary to maneuver the aircraft 156.”) 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Toyoshi (US 20200250854 A1) . Regarding Claims 3 and 13-14 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a flight director assist output signal, ( Wilkins , Col.11, lines 61-67, “the values of tunnel output signals at some specified time ahead of the current aircraft position. The particular signals may include tunnel desired altitude and desired vertical velocity”) and wherein the control signal is based, at least in part, on the flight director assist output signal . ( Wilkins , Col.11, lines 61-67, “the values of tunnel output signals at some specified time ahead of the current aircraft position. The particular signals may include tunnel desired altitude and desired vertical velocity. These signals feed into the error signal computations 222 that are used to drive the pitch and power cues represented as the pitch trim cue 26 and power command cue 30”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Toyoshi teaches: wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values that increase as an absolute value of the error value decreases, ( Toyoshi , para[185], “ gain G1 is increased as the variance σ1.sup.2 of the error of the estimated position Po1 is decreased ”) Examiner note: Toyoshi teaches the gain values that increase as a value of the error metric decreases. And it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to absolute the error metric value to remove the negative sign of error metric. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Toyoshi in order to include wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values that increase as an absolute value of the error metric decreases. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Toyoshi ’s method of setting up the gain regarding to the change of error in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Byzery (US20170001713A1) . Regarding Claims 4 and 15 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Byzery teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising re-enabling the flight director assist system after a delay period has elapsed following the disabling. ( Byzery , claim 10, “wherein one of the pilots of the aircraft may select to prohibit reactivation of a newly deactivated but initially activated member, at least for a predetermined duration , by means of a first selector element that is operable solely by the pilot”, and para [05], “ control device suitable for being moved by a pilot or automatically ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Byzery in order to include re-enabling the flight director assist system after a delay period has elapsed following the disabling. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Byzery ’s aircraft control system as “preventing the pilot from actuating the deactivated member 33 manually ” ( Byzery , Description) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Barron (US3701889A) . Regarding Claims 5 and 16 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches: …for a threshold period of time ( Wilkins , Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton , para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton ’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description). Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Barron teaches: when the error value remains at a non-zero value… ( Barron , Col.4, lines 29-30, “ value of error would be necessary to maintain a non-zero ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Tsang in order to include when the error value does not tend toward zero. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Barron ’s flight control system as improving safe operation of aircraft . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Bustos (US11885633B1) . Regarding Claim 6 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton , para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton ’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description). Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Bustos teaches: …when a change to the one or more trajectory setpoints is detected .( Bustos ,Col.11, lines 24-25 , “ identify a change in destination, route , or waypoint ;”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Bustos in order to include when a change to one or more trajectory setpoints is detected. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Bustos ’ methods for intelligently restricting transportation changes based on signals in a dynamic transportation matching system in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Barron (US3701889A) and Jalalirad (US 20240295661 A1) . Regarding Claims 7 and 18 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches: …based on a period of time … ( Wilkins , Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”) …satisfying a time length threshold ( Wilkins , Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton , para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins ’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton ’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description). Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Barron teaches: …which the error value has a non-zero value that does not decrease ( Barron , Col.4, lines 29-30, “ value of error would be necessary to maintain a non-zero ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Barron in order to include which the error value has a non-zero value that does not decrease. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Barron ’s flight control system as improving safe operation of aircraft. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches: and that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold.. .( Jalalirad , para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include and that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad ’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Mahajan (US 20220009494 A1) . Regarding Claim 8 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the control signal is generated based on the error value… (( Wilkins , Col.2, lines 1-2,” The errors are sent to flight director controls , which generate steering commands .”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Mahajan teaches: …responsive to detection of a condition that satisfies a flight director assist enable criterion . ( Mahajan , para[003], “ determining whether the following vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a larger threshold as a determination to cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device .”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Mahajan in order to include wherein the control signal is generated based on the error metric responsive to detection of a condition that satisfies a flight director assist enable criterion. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Mahajan ’s control device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition. Regarding Claim 9 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton and Mahajan as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Mahajan teaches: The method of claim 8, wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied… ( Mahajan , para[003], “ determining whether the following vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a larger threshold as a determination to cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device .”) …disabling of the flight director assist system . (Mahajan , para[003], “cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device .”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Mahajan in order to include wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Mahajan ’s control device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches: …based on the error value being greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold, ( Jalalirad , para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied based on the error metric having a value that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system and is less than an upper bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad ’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Hamersveld teaches: and based on elapse of a delay period following… ( Hamersveld , para[100], “A delay time period that must elapse , following”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Hamersveld in order to include based on elapse of a delay period following disabling of the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Hamersveld ’s method of a mobile device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Lebegue (US20200312167A1) . Regarding Claim 12 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Lebegue teaches: The aircraft of claim 10, further comprising a display, wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide, to the display, a graphical representation of boundaries of a flight director assist region associated with enabling a flight director assist function .( Lebegue , para[0012], “generate an output configured to cause the dis play device to display , relative to the current location of the aircraft , a surface graphically representing the flight boundary ”, and para[77], “systems and methods for assisting a pilot during flight of an aircraft ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Lebegue in order to include a display, wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide, to the display, a graphical representation of boundaries of a flight director assist region associated with enabling a flight director assist function. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Lebegue ’s aircraft system and method for assisting a pilot during flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Colich (US 7389163 B1) . Regarding Claim 17 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches: The aircraft of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to disable the flight director assist system ( Pelton , para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface ”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton ’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description). Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Colich teaches: … when a pilot inputs a new heading .( Colich , Col.9, lines 35-36 , “ pilot input, which includes specifying a new heading ”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Bustos in order to include when a pilot inputs a new heading. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Colich ’s flight control method in order to minimizing the risk of mid-air collisions between aircrafts . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Jalalirad (US 20240295661 A1) . Regarding Claim 19 : Wilkins in view of Irwin , Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein the control signal is generated based on the error value… (( Wilkins , Col.2, lines 1-2,” The errors are sent to flight director controls , which generate steering commands .”) Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches: responsive to a determination that the error value is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold . ( Jalalirad , para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include wherein the control signal is generated based on the error metric responsive to a determination that the error metric has a value that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system and is less than an upper bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad ’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition . RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 103 rejection . Applicant argues that the cited references of Wilkins, Irwin, and Pelton do not disclose amended claim feature of “ generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for a first actuator of one or more actuators, the first actuator associated with one or more control surfaces of the aircraft; and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold, wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value ” as in claim 1. In response of A . Examiner respectfully disagree. As set forth in the Office action, Wilkins teaches a method of obtaining trajectory data associated with an aircraft operating in a manual flight mode, and obtaining trajectory guidance data from a flight director system of the aircraft, wherein the flight director system generates the trajectory guidance data based on one or more trajectory setpoints, as in claim 21, “generate … desired flight path”, Col.16, lines 66-67, “A flight plan is a sequenced collection of waypoints”. Irwin teaches determining a gain value to be applied to the error value based on a gain schedule, wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values based on the error value in para[15],” a variable gain applied to a rate error”, and para[32], “the variable gain 88 is determined based on a variable gain schedule”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error rerr of the machine 10”. Irwin also teaches generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for a first actuator of one or more actuators, the first actuator associated with one or more control surfaces of the aircraft as in para[04],” The control system further is caused to determines an actuation command based on the variable gain”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error rerr of the machine 10… a total actuator position δ.sub.TOT of the one or more inline actuators 32 is determined in part based on the variable gain 88 applied to the rate error”, para [29], “the inline actuator 32 manipulates or moves one or more of the control effector devices 18 and thereby acts to control one or more direction of movement of the machine 10”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins’ aircraft control system with these above teachings from Irwin in order to include determining, based on a gain schedule, a gain to be applied to the error metric to generate a flight director assist output signal and generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for a first actuator of one or more actuators, the first actuator associated with one or more control surfaces of the aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Irwin’s control system as “improve the controllability and/or stability” (Irwin, Description). Pelton teaches determining that the error value is greater than an upper bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system as in para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold”, claim 1, “A method for monitoring an actuator for a control surface on an aircraft”. Pelton also teaches disabling the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold as in para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold”, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”. Furthermore, Pelton teaches wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the first actuator independent of the error value as in para[38],” A fault is set if any exceedance count... is greater than a threshold… This fault may be used to disable the failed control system”, and para [70], “a failed state in control actuator 604 may be used to initiate control of the control surface with a backup control actuator”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Pelton’s teaching of generating a second control signal to transfer of control to a backup control actuator in response to a detected fault, in combination with Wilkin and Irwin’s teachings of generating actuator control signals based on an error metric when the assist system is enabled, render it obvious to provide a system in which, once the assist function is disabled upon the error exceeding an upper bound, the actuator is thereafter driven by a second control signal ( e.g., conventional manual control mode) that does not depend on the assist system error metric. Furthermore, it is a matter of common design practice in avionics that when a flight assisting system is disengaged or fails, control of the aircraft is returned back to the pilot, which generates actuator commands without reliance on the disabled assist error metric. Incorporating such a failsafe control signal path when disabling an assist system based on a threshold error metric as taught by Pelton, would have been a predictable and straightforward design choice for one of ordinary in the art to maintain controllability and stability while preventing damage or unsafe operation of aircrafts. In summary, Wilkins provides the base aircraft trajectory guidance and actuator control system, Irwin teaches determining a gain value from a gain schedule based on an error value and applying that gain to generate actuator control commands; and Pelton teaches of comparing an error-related signal to the threshold metrics, disabling an assistance or control path when the error exceeds an upper limit, and initiating control of the same control surface via a backup actuator independent of the disabled path’s error signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to improve safety, controllability, and fault-tolerance in a pilot assist system, with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1, 10 and 20 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Wilkins in view of Irwin and Pelton is maintained. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kai Wang whose telephone number is (571) 270-5633 . The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-4:30 Eastern . 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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. /KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 2 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 3 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 4 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 5 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 6 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 7 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 8 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 9 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 10 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 11 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 12 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 13 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 14 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 15 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 16 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 17 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 18 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 19 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 20 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 21 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 22 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 23 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 24 Art Unit: 3664 Application/Control Number: 18/318,908 Page 25 Art Unit: 3664
Prosecution Insights