DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments filed November 6th, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Garai et al. (US Pub. No. 20190287412 A1), herein after Garai, and further in view of Kashawlic et al. (US Pub. No. 20220404843 A1), herein after Kashawlic.
Regarding claim 1, Garai teaches [a] system comprising: a first flight management system (FMS) of a first aircraft; an onboard input interface; and a controller communicatively coupled to the first FMS and the onboard input interface, the controller being configured to (Garai: Para. 0031, teaching a control system for an aircraft can be a flight management system): receive, from a formation flight coordination ground station, a plurality of wake energy formation flight plans, wherein each of the plurality of wake energy formation flight plans comprises an aircraft identifier and a formation flight path associated with one of a plurality of aircraft available to fly in formation with the first aircraft (Garai: Para. 0033, teaching receiving aircraft data of a plurality of aircraft from a ground station, said data including the flight plans of the aircrafts; Para. 0030, teaching that the aircraft data includes information related to the wake (or vortex) of the aircrafts so that the aircrafts can fly in formation and reduce fuel usage; and Para. 0036, teaching determining an overlap of the trajectories of two or more aircraft); receive a… selection of a first aircraft identifier from the plurality of aircraft identifiers displayed on the rendezvous flight pairing display via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching receiving data comprising identifiers of a plurality of aircraft that may be used to pair with the primary aircraft; Para. 0037, teaching that the route to pair the aircraft are presented to a pilot of the aircraft; and Para. 0041, teaching that the formation route is iteratively updated when changes are made by the pilot), wherein: the first aircraft identifier is associated with a second aircraft, the second aircraft being one of the plurality of aircraft available to fly in formation with the first aircraft; the first aircraft identifier is associated with a first wake energy formation flight plan of the plurality of wake energy formation flight plans; the first wake energy formation flight plan comprises a first formation flight path of the second aircraft, the first formation flight path overlapping at least a portion of a flight path of the first aircraft; and one of the first and second aircraft is a leading aircraft and the other one of the first and second aircraft is a following aircraft (Garai: Para. 0033, teaching receiving aircraft data of a plurality of aircraft from a ground station, said data including the flight plans of the aircrafts; Para. 0030, teaching that the aircraft data includes information related to the wake (or vortex) of the aircrafts so that the aircrafts can fly in formation and reduce fuel usage; and Para. 0036, teaching determining an overlap of the trajectories of two or more aircraft); and establish a paired communication channel between the first FMS of the first aircraft and a second FMS of the second aircraft while the first and second aircraft are flying in formation along at least a portion of the first formation flight path to enable transmission of first FMS data generated by the first FMS to the second FMS and receipt of second FMS data generated by the second FMS at the first FMS (Garai: Para. 0038, teaching pairing up aircraft with similar trajectories and sharing the aircraft data including the trajectories of each aircraft between the paired aircraft).
Garai is silent to generate a rendezvous flight pairing display comprising the aircraft identifiers associated with the plurality of aircraft; and the selection being done by a crew member.
In a similar field, Kashawlic teaches generate a rendezvous flight pairing display comprising the aircraft identifiers associated with the plurality of aircraft (Kashawlic: Para. 0042, teaching displaying the flight route including the where the aircraft needs to be to initiate formation flying with a second aircraft); and receive a crew member selection of a first aircraft identifier from the plurality of aircraft identifiers displayed on the rendezvous flight pairing display via the onboard input interface (Kashawlic: Para. 0036, teaching that a pilot operates an aircraft into a formation with a second aircraft before handing over control of their aircraft to an autopilot system) for the benefit of ensuring a smooth and safe transition to formation flying.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the aircraft selection for formation flying from Garai to require the pilot’s input during the process, as taught by Kashawlic, for the benefit of ensuring a smooth and safe transition to formation flying.
Regarding claim 2, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, transmit a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to request establishing the paired communication channel based on the selection of the first aircraft identifier of the second aircraft (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 3, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a start location of the first formation flight path via the onboard input interface; receive an end location of the first formation flight path via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching regarding where an overlap in the routes between the two aircrafts that would allow formation flying begins and where the overlap ends); and transmit a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at the start location and terminate the paired communication channel at the end location, wherein communication between the first FMS and the second FMS is only enabled between the start location and the end location (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 4, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a formation flight duration time via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching receiving data comprising the flight times for when the aircrafts would be flying in formation); and transmit a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at a start location of the at least the portion of the first formation flight path and terminate the paired communication channel after the formation flight duration time has elapsed (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 5, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a formation flight distance via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0037, teaching receiving data comprising the separation distance between the aircraft flying in formation); and transmit a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at a start location of the at least the portion of the first formation flight path and terminate the paired communication channel upon reaching the formation flight distance from the start location (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 6, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a formation flight altitude via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0037, teaching receiving data comprising the altitude that formation flying would occur); and transmit a request to the second aircraft to fly in the formation along the at least the portion of the first formation flight path at the formation flight altitude (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 7, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a formation flight speed via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0037, teaching receiving data comprising the speed profile of the primary and secondary aircraft would follow during formation flying); and transmit a request to the second aircraft to fly in the formation along the at least the portion of the first formation flight path at the formation flight speed (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 8, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a selection of a flight phase from one of a climb flight phase, a cruise flight phase, and a descent flight phase via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0042, teaching that the formation flying can occur in a series of trajectories at different altitudes.); and transmit a request to the second aircraft to fly in the formation along the at least the portion of the first formation flight path in accordance with the selected flight phase (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 10, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: transmit a pairing request to establish the communication channel between the first FMS and the second FMS to the second aircraft; receive a pairing authorization to establish the communication channel between the first FMS and the second FMS from the second aircraft; establish the communication channel between the first FMS and the second FMS in response to the received pairing authorization (Garai: Para. 0031, teaching a control system for an aircraft can be a flight management system; and Para. 0033, teaching that the control system of a primary aircraft can send and receive data from secondary aircrafts to establish pairing to allow the aircraft to fly in formation).
Garai does not explicitly teach terminate the communication channel between the first FMS and the second FMS following the completion of the at least the portion of the first formation flight path, however this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Garai which teach that the pairing communication is only performed when the plurality of aircraft need to send updated flight plan information (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching sending and receiving aircraft data from the secondary aircraft to create and adjust the formation flying of the two aircraft; and Para. 0073, teaching that the sending and receiving of aircraft data is only performed before or during the formation flying to allow the creation or adjustment of the formation flight plan) for the benefit of reducing computational load from unnecessary communications.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to include in the pairing of aircraft for the sake of formation flying in Garai in view of Kashawlic having the communications between the aircraft be terminated after the formation flying has concluded, for the benefit of reducing computational load from unnecessary communications.
Regarding claim 11, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the formation flight coordination ground station comprises at least one of air traffic control (ATC) station, and a dispatcher team station (Garai: Para. 0033, teaching receiving aircraft data of a plurality of aircraft from a ground station which can include an air traffic control station).
Regarding claim 12, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein: the first FMS data comprises at least one of a latitude location of the first aircraft, a longitude location of the first aircraft, an altitude of the first aircraft, a ground speed of the first aircraft, a true track angle of the first aircraft, a true heading of the first aircraft, a Mach number associated with a speed of the first aircraft, a true airspeed (TAS) of the first aircraft, a roll angle of the first aircraft, a hybrid vertical speed of the first aircraft, a gross weight of the first aircraft, a wind direction detected by the first aircraft, and a wind speed detected by the first aircraft; and the second FMS data comprises at least one of a latitude location of the second aircraft, a longitude location of the second aircraft, an altitude of the second aircraft, a ground speed of the second aircraft, a true track angle of the second aircraft, a true heading of the second aircraft, a Mach number associated with a speed of the second aircraft, a true airspeed (TAS) of the second aircraft, a roll angle of the second aircraft, a hybrid vertical speed of the second aircraft, a gross weight of the second aircraft, a wind direction detected by the second aircraft, and a wind speed detected by the second aircraft (Garai: Para. 0032, teaching that the aircraft data includes data of the aircrafts such as longitude location data, latitude location data, altitude data, and air-speed of the aircrafts).
Regarding claim 13, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the first aircraft is the following aircraft and the second aircraft is the leading aircraft (Garai: Para. 0038, teaching that either the primary or the secondary aircrafts can be the leading aircraft).
Regarding claim 14, Garai teaches [a] method comprising: receiving from a formation flight coordination ground station at a first aircraft, a plurality of wake energy formation flight plans, wherein each of the plurality of wake energy formation flight plans comprises an aircraft identifier and a formation flight path associated with one of a plurality of aircraft available to fly in formation with the first aircraft (Garai: Para. 0033, teaching receiving aircraft data of a plurality of aircraft from a ground station, said data including the flight plans of the aircrafts; Para. 0030, teaching that the aircraft data includes information related to the wake (or vortex) of the aircrafts so that the aircrafts can fly in formation and reduce fuel usage; and Para. 0036, teaching determining an overlap of the trajectories of two or more aircraft) receiving a… selection of a first aircraft identifier from the plurality of aircraft identifiers displayed on the rendezvous flight pairing display via an onboard input interface, wherein (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching receiving data comprising identifiers of a plurality of aircraft that may be used to pair with the primary aircraft; Para. 0037, teaching that the route to pair the aircraft are presented to a pilot of the aircraft; and Para. 0041, teaching that the formation route is iteratively updated when changes are made by the pilot): the first aircraft identifier is associated with a second aircraft, the second aircraft being one of the plurality of aircraft available to fly in formation with the first aircraft; the first aircraft identifier is associated with a first wake energy formation flight plan of the plurality of wake energy formation flight plans; the first wake energy formation flight plan comprises a first formation flight path of the second aircraft, the first formation flight path overlapping at least a portion of a flight path of the first aircraft; and one of the first and second aircraft is a leading aircraft and the other one of the first and second aircraft is a following aircraft (Garai: Para. 0033, teaching receiving aircraft data of a plurality of aircraft from a ground station, said data including the flight plans of the aircrafts; Para. 0030, teaching that the aircraft data includes information related to the wake (or vortex) of the aircrafts so that the aircrafts can fly in formation and reduce fuel usage; and Para. 0036, teaching determining an overlap of the trajectories of two or more aircraft); and establishing, by the first aircraft, a paired communication channel between a first flight management system (FMS) of the first aircraft and a second FMS of the second aircraft while the first and second aircraft are flying in formation along at least a portion of the first formation flight path to enable transmission of first FMS data generated by the first FMS to the second FMS and receipt of second FMS data generated by the second FMS at the first FMS (Garai: Para. 0038, teaching pairing up aircraft with similar trajectories and sharing the aircraft data including the trajectories of each aircraft between the paired aircraft).
Regarding claim 15, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, further comprising: transmitting a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to request establishing the paired communication channel based on the selection of the first aircraft identifier of the second aircraft (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 16, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving a start location of the first formation flight path via the onboard input interface of the first aircraft; receiving an end location of the first formation flight path via the onboard input interface of the first aircraft (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching regarding where an overlap in the routes between the two aircrafts that would allow formation flying begins and where the overlap ends); and transmitting a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at the start location and terminate the paired communication channel at the end location, wherein communication between the first FMS and the second FMS is only enabled between the start location and the end location (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 17, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving a formation flight duration time via the onboard input interface of the first aircraft (Garai: Para. 0036, teaching receiving data comprising the flight times for when the aircrafts would be flying in formation); and transmitting a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at a start location of the at least the portion of the first formation flight path and terminate the paired communication channel after the formation flight duration time has elapsed (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 18, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving a formation flight distance via the onboard input interface (Garai: Para. 0037, teaching receiving data comprising the separation distance between the aircraft flying in formation); and transmitting a pairing request from the first aircraft to the second aircraft to initiate the paired communication channel at a start location of the at least the portion of the first formation flight path and terminate the paired communication channel upon reaching the formation flight distance from the start location (Garai: Para. 0039, teaching transmitting a request to pair a secondary aircraft with the primary aircraft based on the determination that formation flying would be beneficial).
Regarding claim 19, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, wherein the first aircraft is the following aircraft and the second aircraft is the leading aircraft (Garai: Para. 0038, teaching that either the primary or the secondary aircrafts can be the leading aircraft).
Regarding claim 20, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 14, and Garai goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 14, wherein: the first FMS data comprises at least one of a latitude location of the first aircraft, a longitude location of the first aircraft, an altitude of the first aircraft, a ground speed of the first aircraft, a true track angle of the first aircraft, a true heading of the first aircraft, a Mach number associated with a speed of the first aircraft, a true airspeed (TAS) of the first aircraft, a roll angle of the first aircraft, a hybrid vertical speed of the first aircraft, a gross weight of the first aircraft, a wind direction detected by the first aircraft, and a wind speed detected by the first aircraft; and the second FMS data comprises at least one of a latitude location of the second aircraft, a longitude location of the second aircraft, an altitude of the second aircraft, a ground speed of the second aircraft, a true track angle of the second aircraft, a true heading of the second aircraft, a Mach number associated with a speed of the second aircraft, a true airspeed (TAS) of the second aircraft, a roll angle of the second aircraft, a hybrid vertical speed of the second aircraft, a gross weight of the second aircraft, a wind direction detected by the second aircraft, and a wind speed detected by the second aircraft (Garai: Para. 0032, teaching that the aircraft data includes data of the aircrafts such as longitude location data, latitude location data, altitude data, and air-speed of the aircrafts).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garai in view of Kashawlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of previously cited of record Roggendorf et al. (US Patent No. 10908277 B1), herein after Roggendorf.
Regarding claim 9, Garai and Kashawlic remain as applied as in claim 1, however they are silent to [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display a synchronized visualization of the first aircraft and the second aircraft flying in the formation along the at least the portion of the first formation flight path based at least in part on the first FMS data and the second FMS data on the onboard display device.
In a similar field, Roggendorf teaches [t]he system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to display a synchronized visualization of the first aircraft and the second aircraft flying in the formation along the at least the portion of the first formation flight path based at least in part on the first FMS data and the second FMS data on the onboard display device (Roggendorf: Page 21 col.14 lines 4-18, teaching displaying visualizations of both aircrafts when one if following another) for the benefit of allowing the pilots of the aircrafts to better visualize the distance between each aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the pairing of aircraft for the sake of formation flying from Garai in view of Kashawlic to display to the pilots of both aircrafts a visualization of both aircrafts, as taught by Roggendorf, for the benefit of allowing the pilots of the aircrafts to better visualize the distance between each aircraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 6th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 6th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-20 under 102(a)(1) in view of Garai, claim 10 under 103 in view of Garai, and claim 9 in view of Garai in view of Roggendorf have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 103 in view of Garai in further view of Kashawlic and claim 9 under 103 in view of Garai in further view of Kashawlic in further view of Roggendorf.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663