DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant Amendment and Argument filed on 02/13/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 have been 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 or are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-10, 13-16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (US 4792906 A), hereinafter King in view of Wilkins et al (US 7010398 B2), hereinafter Wilkins and further in view of Heiberg et al (US 20200082729 A1), hereinafter Heiberg.
Regarding claim 1, King teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a flight management system (FMS) of an aircraft (Section II, Fig. 2), a target value, the target value comprising at least one of: (i) an altitude target value or (ii) a time target value, (Section VII: "time target value” = selected look ahead time interval) ;
determining a target aircraft position relating to the target value (Section VII, Fig.17: the trend vector is calculated as a function of present aircraft airspeed and flight path angle; the end of the trend vector 101 indicates the predicted aircraft position at the selected look ahead time);
calculating a distance for the aircraft to travel from a current aircraft position to the target aircraft position (the calculated length of the trend vector 101 is indicative of the distance that the aircraft will travel within the selected look ahead time interval) ;
displaying the calculated distance in a user interface of the aircraft (Fig.17: the calculated distance is shown as the length of the displayed trend vector 101); and
providing fix coordinates for the target aircraft position to the FMS for use in flight management of the aircraft, (the FMS itself calculates the target aircraft position, and displaying the information in the form of the trend vector may be regarded as use in flight management of the aircraft; cf. claim 6 of the present application).
. However King does not explicitly teach , wherein the target aircraft position differs from an existing flight plan for the aircraft, and wherein the target aircraft position is determined based on an interpolation between the user input value received via the user input directed to the FMS, and a current trajectory for the aircraft,
wherein the target value is a user input value received via a user input directed to the FMS,
the fix coordinates derived at least in part from the altitude target value or the time target value received via the user input, and
modifying an existing flight plan for the aircraft by adding the fix coordinates to the existing flight plan
However, in a similar field of endeavor (flight systems with user input) Wilkins teaches wherein the target value is a user input value received via a user input directed to the FMS (col 13 line 33-39 : “In core mode, the tunnel generator component 450 renders and provides guidance along a tunnel that represents a heading hold, an altitude hold, or both. The values for the headings and/or altitudes used in core mode may be provided from real-time pilot defined inputs. The core mode tunnel preferably adjusts as needed to represent the current state of these commanded values.”),
the fix coordinates derived at least in part from the altitude target value or the time target value received via the user input (col 13 line 33-39 : “In core mode, the tunnel generator component 450 renders and provides guidance along a tunnel that represents a heading hold, an altitude hold, or both. The values for the headings and/or altitudes used in core mode may be provided from real-time pilot defined inputs. The core mode tunnel preferably adjusts as needed to represent the current state of these commanded values.”), and
modifying an existing flight plan for the aircraft by adding the fix coordinates to the existing flight plan (col 13 line 53-55 : “When a core mode (e.g., heading hold, altitude hold) is enabled, the pre-programmed flight plans are ignored, and a new, real-time adjusted, flight path is created.”, where ignoring a previous flight plan during flight to generate a new flight plan is a modification of an existing flight plan.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the pilot inputs as taught by Wilkins with the system of King. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as a means by which to improve safety by I creasing operator control to better suit given circumstances. However, the combination does not explicitly teach based on an interpolation between the target value and a current trajectory for the aircraft.
However, in a similar field of endeavor (continuous flight trajectories for aircraft) Heiberg teaches wherein the target aircraft position differs from an existing flight plan for the aircraft, and wherein the target aircraft position is determined based on an interpolation between the user input value received via the user input directed to the FMS, and a current trajectory for the aircraft (para [0013] : “In contrast to those prior techniques, the herein-described techniques provide continuous guidance to aircraft using autopilot and/or other autonomous flying systems by processing a mid-course change of a flight plan by calculating a remainder of a changed flight plan in parallel with providing aircraft controls from a current flight plan and switching from the current flight plan to the changed flight plan without interrupting control of the aircraft by the flight management system, thereby avoiding unexpected course changes due to processing mid-course changes.”, para [0015] : “In some cases, flight plans are subject to change; e.g., due to air traffic control instructions, changes in meteorological conditions, changes in aircraft weight data, and/or changes in aircraft velocity data. In some cases, flight plan changes involve a pilot or other aircraft personnel editing the flight plan. If the flight plan changes, the trajectory calculator can copy the original flight plan, make the changes to the copy of the flight plan, and calculate a new trajectory based on the changed flight plan.”, para [0016] : “Because the trajectory calculator calculates a trajectory based on an input flight plan, the trajectory calculator could restart trajectory calculation when a state of the flight plan changes. But, instead of starting over or copying the trajectory in the same manner as the flight plan, the herein-described techniques include remapping an edited (or standby) trajectory to a new output even though an input (as far as a flight management system is concerned) was changed. To remap trajectories, the trajectory calculator can simultaneously calculate multiple trajectories using multiple trajectory processes, track states of the flight plans and trajectories and, and determine when and how to properly remap trajectories by switching between trajectory processes.”, para [0030] : “Further, the trajectory calculator can enable switching between flight plans (and thereby switching between trajectories) without interrupting control of the aircraft, thereby providing for continuously-controlled flight before, during, and after such switches.”, where continuous control between the two trajectories would require interpolation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of King and Wilkins with the teachings of Heiberg to improve the adaptability of in flight planning.
Regarding claim 4, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 1, further King teaches wherein the target value comprises the time target value (Section VII: "time target value” = selected look ahead time interval) and wherein the target aircraft position comprises an estimated position for the aircraft at the time target value (Section VII, Fig.17: the trend vector is calculated as a function of present aircraft airspeed and flight path angle; the end of the trend vector 101 indicates the predicted aircraft position at the selected look ahead time).
Regarding claim 5, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 1, further King teaches wherein the trajectory comprises a vertical trajectory for the aircraft (Abstract - An aircraft navigational system for providing a geometric display to the pilot of the vertical position of the aircraft relative to a selected vertical flight path profile).
Regarding claim 6, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 1, further King teaches wherein providing the fix coordinates for the target aircraft position to the FMS comprises:
displaying the fix coordinates in a command display unit (CDU) of the aircraft; and
storing the fix coordinates in an electronic repository relating to the CDU (displaying the trend vector amounts to displaying the target coordinates. See also D1: Section Il, Fig.2: CDU 40 controls screens 45, 50. The storing of the target coordinates is implicit in the fact that the data are processed)
Regarding claim 7, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 6, further King teaches wherein the fix coordinates are provided in response to a second user input to the CDU (para 38 any waypoint/altitude constraints supplied by the instrument departure or by a controller, and which are entered as part of the original flight plan or by the pilot at the CDU keypad 48).
Regarding claim 9, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 1, further King teaches further comprising:
navigating the aircraft based on the modified flight plan (para 9 “a navigational system in which aircraft vertical position with respect to a selected vertical flight path profile is displayed to the pilot in order to aid in maintaining the vertical position of the aircraft with respect to the vertical flight path profile”).
Claims 10, 13, 14 and 15 are a non transitory computer readable medium in which the limitations are substantially similar to claims 1, 4, 6, and 9, therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are a system with a processor and memory (taught by King Fig.2) that performs the methods of claims 1, 4, and 9. The limitations are substantially similar therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21 King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches The method of claim 1, further Wilkins teaches wherein modifying the existing flight plan for the aircraft includes one or more of adding an altitude or speed constraint, adding a hold pattern, or adding a planned step (col 13 line 33-39 : “In core mode, the tunnel generator component 450 renders and provides guidance along a tunnel that represents a heading hold, an altitude hold, or both. The values for the headings and/or altitudes used in core mode may be provided from real-time pilot defined inputs. The core mode tunnel preferably adjusts as needed to represent the current state of these commanded values.”, col 13 line 53-55 : “When a core mode (e.g., heading hold, altitude hold) is enabled, the pre-programmed flight plans are ignored, and a new, real-time adjusted, flight path is created.”).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 11, 12, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King, Wilkins, and Heiberg in view of Edwards (US 20220215759 A1).
Regarding claim 2, King, Wilkins, and Heiberg teaches the method of claim 1.
King does not teach wherein the target value comprises the altitude target value and wherein the target aircraft position comprises an estimated position at which the aircraft will next reach the altitude target value.
Edwards teaches wherein the target value comprises the altitude target value and wherein the target aircraft position comprises an estimated position at which the aircraft will next reach the altitude target value (para.56, Fig.4: "target aircraft position" = computed point 404 at which aircraft reaches target altitude at the end of the FA leg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the distance of current position to target position as taught by Edwards in the values of King and Wilkins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as “a pilot or crew has greater visibility and insight into how far along a reference radial an aircraft should fly before changing direction” (Edwards [0056]).
Regarding claim 3 King, Wilkins, Heiberg, and Edwards teaches the method of claim 2.
Edwards teaches further comprising:
receiving, at the FMS of the aircraft, a second target value comprising a time target value;
determining a second target aircraft position relating to the second target value, based on an interpolation between the second target value and a second current trajectory for the aircraft;
calculating a second distance for the aircraft to travel from an updated current aircraft position to the second target aircraft position;
displaying the second calculated distance in the user interface of the aircraft; and
providing second coordinates for the second target aircraft position to the FMS for use in flight management of the aircraft (At 804, terminations along the route can be determined. In this regard, an FMS can evaluate a route and determine the various legs along the route. From the various legs, corresponding leg terminations can be determined. At 806, from the terminations determined to be on the route, the appropriate termination(s) to display can be determined. Terminations can be determined to be appropriate or not appropriate based upon a criterion or criteria, such as distance (e.g., within a threshold distance) between aircraft and termination, whether the termination comprises a GOTO termination, the number of terminations ahead, determined using machine learning, or with another suitable criteria discussed herein or as would be suitable. It can be appreciated that multiple terminations can be evaluated to determine whether zero, a singularity, or a plurality of leg terminations satisfy a criterion (e.g., distance between a termination and aircraft less than a threshold distance). At 808, the appropriate termination(s) to display can be displayed (e.g., on a visualization component 1108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the distance of current position to target position as taught by Edwards in the values of King. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated as “a pilot or crew has greater visibility and insight into how far along a reference radial an aircraft should fly before changing direction” (Edwards [0056]).
Claims 11 and 12 are a non transitory computer readable medium in which the limitations are substantially similar to claims 2 and 3, therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 17 and 18 are a system with a processor and memory (taught by King Fig.2) that performs the methods of claims 2 and 3. The limitations are substantially similar therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached on 571-270-5965. 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.
/D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 6/30/2026
Prosecution Insights