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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 12/27/2023 (claimed foreign priority date 12/29/2022):
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claims 1-6, 11-16 and 19-20 have been allowed.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Specification
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to amend the specification as the following:
[0010] Some aspects may further include creating a wind-optimal airspeed value look-up table as a function of aircraft type, and a wind magnitude and a wind direction relative to a planned segment of the flight plan associated with a waypoint, and a flight altitude, and incorporating the wind-optimal airspeed value look-up table to the PDB using RTCA DO-200 or a suitable process. In some aspects, generating the predicted wind-optimal airspeed value for each of the identified sequence of waypoints may include generating values that estimate an airspeed at each waypoint based on the following parameters a forecasted wind condition, the sensed wind condition, aircraft performance data, and the flight plan. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1.1 Claims 7-10 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.1.1 Claims 7, 9 and 17-18 recite the limitation "the wind magnitude and the wind direction" in the bodies of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
1.1.2 Claims 7, 9 and 17-18 recite the limitation "the wind magnitude and the wind direction," which is unclear whether these are "the wind magnitude and the wind direction" that are relative to a current segment of a flight plan, in accordance with claims 1 and 11 that claims 7, 9 and 17-18 directly depend on correspondingly, OR these are "the wind magnitude and the wind direction" that are relative to a planned segment of the flight plan, in accordance with claims 2 and 12 that also directly depend on claims 1 and 11 correspondingly, OR these are "the wind magnitude and the wind direction" that are relative to both current segment of a flight plan of claims 1 and 11 and planned segment of the flight plan of claims 2 and 12, OR what, OR how, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret that the claimed, in claims 7, 9 and 17-18, "the wind magnitude and the wind direction" are wind magnitude and wind direction relative to a current segment of a flight plan, in accordance with claims 1 and 11 that claims 7, 9 and 17-18 directly depend on correspondingly.
1.1.3 Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their corresponding dependencies on rejected dependent claims 7 and 9, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, in regard to claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 19-20 ONLY:
In regard to claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 19-20 ONLY, in performing initial search, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is WYATT (CN109491399A) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of VILLAUME (FR2931983A1), BALASKOVIC (ES2629480T3) and GRIFFIN (EP1400884A1), who describe an aircraft flight control system and method; the system that provides the received inertial data, control module of sensor data and target airspeed; control module to evaluate the energy state of the aircraft using an aircraft thrust and resistance model to process the received data; based on the energy state of the aircraft, the control module that determines (i) a target airspeed at maximum thrust limit of the maximum prediction potential flight path maximum-PPFP, and (ii) an idle thrust at the target airspeed limits of idling predicted potential flight path, and "idle PPFP;" control module that generates a display command for displaying system to display (i) the flight path angle, (ii) a maximum PPFP and (iii) racing PPFP; when the FPA during idling over the maximum PPFP or PPFP below the control module that generates and displays the predicted flight path speed indicator (PFPS).
In regards to claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 and 19-20 ONLY, WYATT (CN109491399A) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s): adjusting an operational parameter of the aircraft by sending the active airspeed target value to the automatic flight control system (AFCS), mode control panel (MCP), or pilot based on a level of automation in the aircraft.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
Ho (US20220035367) – (see entire Ho document, particularly abstract – teaching systems and methods that include computing system configured to coordinate more than one remotely operated vehicle using level of automation determination and assignments; the method for coordinating a plurality of drones that includes using a computer with a processor and a memory in communication with the plurality of drones, and a candidate problem resolver for retrieving a candidate resolution from a data storage, and sending the retrieved candidate resolution to a candidate resolution states predictor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights