DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 12-15 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman et al., US PG Pub 2008/0114504 A1., (hereafter Goodman), in view of Oder et al., US PG Pub 2016/0373184 A1., (hereafter Oder), in view of Bertram et al., US Patent 10,032,111., (hereafter Bertram) and further in view Komer et al., US PG Pub 2007/0288128 A1., (hereafter Komer).
Regarding claims 1 & 10-13 where it is disclosed by Goodman to have a displaying and programming of an airplane system based on clearances and instructions as shown in at least figures 2A-B. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “A system for an aircraft [at least figure 1 and paragraphs 2-3] comprising:… an autonomous computing system onboard the aircraft and configured to determine a flight command [at least paragraphs 36-37 where the aircraft systems can enter the command into an actual flight control command thus interpreted as the aircraft includes autonomous computing system that can control flight controls such as an autopilot system would] …; and an aircraft computing system comprising a Flight Management System (FMS) [at least paragraph 15 where “FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of various embodiments of the present invention, receiving, by an airplane, clearances and/or instructions from a control system via a data link and displaying the received information. As illustrated, an air traffic control center (hereinafter, ATC) 102 may be adapted to provide one or more clearances and/or instructions to a system 106 of an airplane (hereinafter, system 106) through controller to pilot data link communication (hereinafter, CPDLC) 104 connections between a control system of ATC 102 and systems 106. System 106 may then facilitate the flight crew of the airplane in determining whether to accept or reject the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), in one embodiment by displaying the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew. If accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may auto-load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and may auto-adjust one or more airplane controls based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s).”], … , the aircraft computing system configured to automatically facilitate execution of the flight command via the flight management system (FMS) [at least paragraphs 15 where, “FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of various embodiments of the present invention, receiving, by an airplane, clearances and/or instructions from a control system via a data link and displaying the received information. As illustrated, an air traffic control center (hereinafter, ATC) 102 may be adapted to provide one or more clearances and/or instructions to a system 106 of an airplane (hereinafter, system 106) through controller to pilot data link communication (hereinafter, CPDLC) 104 connections between a control system of ATC 102 and systems 106. System 106 may then facilitate the flight crew of the airplane in determining whether to accept or reject the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), in one embodiment by displaying the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew. If accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may auto-load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and may auto-adjust one or more airplane controls based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s).”].”
However it is not specifically disclosed by Goodman to have their system include, “…the aircraft computing system partitioned from the autonomous computing system by a firewall…”
Oder is directed to a communication device for airborne systems and in at least paragraphs 22-24 describes their system having an FMS or flight management system for an aircraft and further they describe in at least paragraphs 35, 53 & 79 to have a software or hardware/physical firewall that separates the aircraft system from external sources while still allowing communication and data uplink between the aircraft and ground sources such as ATC. See paragraph 53 for the firewall, “[0053] The avionics and open world modules are coupled through serial or parallel links (120) to allow exchanges between the two modules. According to the variants of implementation, the intra-module communication protocol comprises various hardware and software mechanisms which make the device safe and secure in overall terms with regard to the open world. Thus, a firewall type layer is installed in the module on the avionics side of the device in order to make the exchanges with the open world secure.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman by the teachings of Oder, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft communications with external sources. Where one would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify Goodman by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Oder. Where in this instance Goodman has communication between external sources and the aircraft but fails to specifically disclose any firewall between the two that would allow the aircraft system to be protected from external interference or exploitation which the firewall would prevent as taught by Oder in at least paragraph [0053], “Thus, a firewall type layer is installed in the module on the avionics side of the device in order to make the exchanges with the open world secure.”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Goodman nor Oder to have a pre trained neural network.
Bertram is directed to a system and method for machine learning of pilot behavior and in at least column 10 lines 18-35 and column 17 lines 25-40 they describe their system including a trained neural network. Where they cite, “(40) In some embodiments, the learning system 256 includes a neural network. The neural network can include a plurality of layers each including one or more nodes, such as a first layer (e.g., an input layer), a second layer (e.g., an output layer), and one or more hidden layers. The neural network can include characteristics such weights and biases associated with computations that can be performed between nodes of layers.
(41) The machine learning engine 208 can be configured to train the neural network by providing the first input conditions to the first layer of the neural network. The neural network can generate a plurality of first outputs based on the first input conditions, such as by executing computations between nodes of the layers. The machine learning engine 208 can receive the plurality of first outputs, and modify a characteristic of the neural network to reduce a difference between the plurality of first outputs and the plurality of first response maneuvers.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify both Goodman and Order by the teachings of Bertram where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft control systems. Where one would have looked to modify both Goodman and Order, with a reasonable expectation of success, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Bertram. Where in this instance the modification of both Goodman and Order whom do not have a pretrained neural network that can be used to help control the aircraft by takin messages, where the functionality of the neural network being pre trained versus not trained would be advantageous to the user as they can just plug and use the system as compared to if the y have to set it up and train it which would take a lot of time and resources. The system being pretrained allows for the immediate use of the neural network and allows it to help the user instead of the user spending lots of time training and preparing the neural network to be used which would cost time and money.
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Goodman, Oder or Bertram to include the feature of, “…an aircraft control system…” and “...onboard the aircraft, the aircraft computing system …”.
Komer is directed to an automatic speech recognition system and method for an aircraft. Where it is disclosed by Komer in at least paragraphs 0036 & 0043 to have their system including, “an aircraft control system…” and “..onboard the aircraft, the aircraft computing system …”.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder or Bertram by the teachings of Komer where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling aircrafts. Where one would have looked to modify Goodman, Oder or Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Komer. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder or Bertram whom do not specifically have their systems include the use of an autonomous aircraft system, which is taught by Komer where the advantages of this is that the systems autopilot/autonomous system can control the flight and reduce the workload on the user/pilot of the aircraft and thus reduce the chances of fatigue of the pilot due to constant attention and workload flying a remote vehicle. Furthermore, the autonomous/autopilot system allows the vehicle to operate by its self if the vehicle lose communication with the remote operator and hence prevent an accident or collision with other objects is communications are lost.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it is also described by Oder to have all the systems separated as shown in at least figures 1 and 2, which is read upon by applicants claim to, “the aircraft computing system is physically partitioned from the autonomous computing system by a physical hardware separation, with the autonomous computing system isolated from a remainder of the aircraft.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman by the teachings of Oder, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft communications with external sources. Where one would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify Goodman by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Oder. Where in this instance Goodman has communication between external sources and the aircraft but fails to specifically disclose any firewall between the two that would allow the aircraft system to be protected from external interference or exploitation which the firewall would prevent as taught by Oder in at least paragraph [0053], “Thus, a firewall type layer is installed in the module on the avionics side of the device in order to make the exchanges with the open world secure.”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Goodman nor Oder to have a pre trained neural network.
Bertram is directed to a system and method for machine learning of pilot behavior and in at least column 10 lines 18-35 and column 17 lines 25-40 they describe their system including a trained neural network. Where they cite, “(40) In some embodiments, the learning system 256 includes a neural network. The neural network can include a plurality of layers each including one or more nodes, such as a first layer (e.g., an input layer), a second layer (e.g., an output layer), and one or more hidden layers. The neural network can include characteristics such weights and biases associated with computations that can be performed between nodes of layers.
(41) The machine learning engine 208 can be configured to train the neural network by providing the first input conditions to the first layer of the neural network. The neural network can generate a plurality of first outputs based on the first input conditions, such as by executing computations between nodes of the layers. The machine learning engine 208 can receive the plurality of first outputs, and modify a characteristic of the neural network to reduce a difference between the plurality of first outputs and the plurality of first response maneuvers.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify both Goodman and Order by the teachings of Bertram where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft control systems. Where one would have looked to modify both Goodman and Order, with a reasonable expectation of success, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Bertram. Where in this instance the modification of both Goodman and Order whom do not have a pretrained neural network that can be used to help control the aircraft by takin messages, where the functionality of the neural network being pre trained versus not trained would be advantageous to the user as they can just plug and use the system as compared to if the y have to set it up and train it which would take a lot of time and resources. The system being pretrained allows for the immediate use of the neural network and allows it to help the user instead of the user spending lots of time training and preparing the neural network to be used which would cost time and money.
Regarding claim 13 where as shown above in Bertram they also discloses having their system include, “the autonomous computing system is a flight aid or flight assistive device [in at least paragraph 15 where they describe … “If accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may auto-load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and may auto-adjust one or more airplane controls based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s)”].”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman and Oder, by the teachings of Bertram where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft systems and the control of said systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Goodman and Oder by Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Bertram. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman and Oder to now include the neural network to control the aircraft in a better way as it would be able to help the autopilot to control the aircraft.
Regarding claim 2 where it is disclosed by Goodman in at least paragraphs 15 to have their system, “receiving, by an airplane, clearances and/or instructions from a control system via a data link and displaying the received information. As illustrated, an air traffic control center (hereinafter, ATC) 102 may be adapted to provide one or more clearances and/or instructions to a system 106 of an airplane (hereinafter, system 106) through controller to pilot data link communication (hereinafter, CPDLC) 104 connections between a control system of ATC 102 and systems 106. System 106 may then facilitate the flight crew of the airplane in determining whether to accept or reject the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), in one embodiment by displaying the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew. If accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may auto-load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and may auto-adjust one or more airplane controls based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s).” They also teach this in at least paragraphs 28-30, see below:
“[0028] As described above, system 106 may receive clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) via means of the airplane having system 106, such as a radio/satellite transceiver. System 106 may be communicatively coupled to such means through any mechanism known in the art. If the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) were received via CPDLC 104, system 106 may convey the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew via some output mechanism, such as a display or audio speaker. For example, system 106 may render or cause to be rendered graphic or textual representations of the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) on a cockpit display device, which may be the same device rendering the displays depicted in FIG. 3 and/or 4, or may be a separate display device. Such graphic representations may include, in the case of received instruction(s), a depiction of the airplane having system 106 and the airplane to be followed, with the airplane to be followed depicted as highlighted. In addition to rendering the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), system 106 may also render or cause to be rendered additional textual or graphic information to facilitate the flight crew in determining whether to accept or reject clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). Such additional information may comprise weather conditions, a number of airplanes in a flight space, etc. System 106 may also associate the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) with a graphical or physical control or controls capable of being actuated by the flight crew. For example, the display rendering the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be a touch-sensitive display and may also render "accept" and "reject" graphic buttons that may be actuated by a flight crew touch on the portion of the display rendering the graphic button.
[0029] In another embodiment, the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be transmitted via radio waves other than CPDLC 104, received by a radio transceiver of the airplane having system 106, and may be output by a speaker of the airplane. The speaker may then output the radio wave signals, and flight crew may program the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) into system 106, if the flight crew chooses to accept them. In one embodiment, rather than simply outputting the audio signals with a speaker, a computer system of the airplane, such as system 106, may apply speech recognition technologies to the radio signals to translate the verbal clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) into the same data format transmitted over CPDLC 104, and may display/convey the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) in any of the manners described above, or in any manner known in the art.
[0030] Regardless of whether the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) are accepted or rejected by the flight crew, and whether the acceptance/rejection was received through actuation of a graphical/physical control, system 106 may transmit data indicating acceptance/rejection of the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to ATC 102 via CPDLC 104. System 106 may send the data to the airplane's radio/satellite transceiver, which may then transmit the data to ATC 102, directly or indirectly. If the acceptance/rejection was received through voice inputs into a microphone communicatively coupled to system 106, system 106 may transmit the voice inputs to ATC 102 through a radio transceiver of the airplane. In one embodiment, the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be transmitted through one of CPDLC 104 and radio voice inputs, and the flight crew response may be transmitted via the other of the two. In various embodiments, if the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) are accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may automatically load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and/or may adjust one or more controls of the airplane based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). For example, if a clearance has been accepted, and the clearance is associated with arrival information, system 106 may retrieve the arrival information and, if the arrival information includes one or more settings, system 106 may tune one or more controls to correspond to those settings. Such arrival information may be retrieved from a local or a remote database. In addition to adjusting controls based on the retrieved information, system 106 may also display the retrieved information, such as rendering or causing to be rendered textual or graphic representation of arrival information, which may include runway conditions. In another example, if instructions have been accepted, various control settings may be automatically adjusted by system 106 in order to acquire or maintain, for example, an instructed spacing.”
Regarding claim 4 where Goodman in at least paragraphs 15 and 28-30 to have their system also include the feature of, “an application programming interface (API) communicatively coupled to the autonomous computing system and the pilot validation interface, the API configured to validate format compliance of the flight command received at the API.” Where the user interface is the API the can communicate with the flight control system/autonomous control system/autopilot for the aircraft. The pilot validates the system using the display system/API, as described below:
“[0028] As described above, system 106 may receive clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) via means of the airplane having system 106, such as a radio/satellite transceiver. System 106 may be communicatively coupled to such means through any mechanism known in the art. If the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) were received via CPDLC 104, system 106 may convey the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew via some output mechanism, such as a display or audio speaker. For example, system 106 may render or cause to be rendered graphic or textual representations of the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) on a cockpit display device, which may be the same device rendering the displays depicted in FIG. 3 and/or 4, or may be a separate display device. Such graphic representations may include, in the case of received instruction(s), a depiction of the airplane having system 106 and the airplane to be followed, with the airplane to be followed depicted as highlighted. In addition to rendering the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), system 106 may also render or cause to be rendered additional textual or graphic information to facilitate the flight crew in determining whether to accept or reject clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). Such additional information may comprise weather conditions, a number of airplanes in a flight space, etc. System 106 may also associate the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) with a graphical or physical control or controls capable of being actuated by the flight crew. For example, the display rendering the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be a touch-sensitive display and may also render "accept" and "reject" graphic buttons that may be actuated by a flight crew touch on the portion of the display rendering the graphic button.
[0029] In another embodiment, the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be transmitted via radio waves other than CPDLC 104, received by a radio transceiver of the airplane having system 106, and may be output by a speaker of the airplane. The speaker may then output the radio wave signals, and flight crew may program the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) into system 106, if the flight crew chooses to accept them. In one embodiment, rather than simply outputting the audio signals with a speaker, a computer system of the airplane, such as system 106, may apply speech recognition technologies to the radio signals to translate the verbal clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) into the same data format transmitted over CPDLC 104, and may display/convey the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) in any of the manners described above, or in any manner known in the art.
[0030] Regardless of whether the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) are accepted or rejected by the flight crew, and whether the acceptance/rejection was received through actuation of a graphical/physical control, system 106 may transmit data indicating acceptance/rejection of the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to ATC 102 via CPDLC 104. System 106 may send the data to the airplane's radio/satellite transceiver, which may then transmit the data to ATC 102, directly or indirectly. If the acceptance/rejection was received through voice inputs into a microphone communicatively coupled to system 106, system 106 may transmit the voice inputs to ATC 102 through a radio transceiver of the airplane. In one embodiment, the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may be transmitted through one of CPDLC 104 and radio voice inputs, and the flight crew response may be transmitted via the other of the two. In various embodiments, if the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) are accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may automatically load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and/or may adjust one or more controls of the airplane based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). For example, if a clearance has been accepted, and the clearance is associated with arrival information, system 106 may retrieve the arrival information and, if the arrival information includes one or more settings, system 106 may tune one or more controls to correspond to those settings. Such arrival information may be retrieved from a local or a remote database. In addition to adjusting controls based on the retrieved information, system 106 may also display the retrieved information, such as rendering or causing to be rendered textual or graphic representation of arrival information, which may include runway conditions. In another example, if instructions have been accepted, various control settings may be automatically adjusted by system 106 in order to acquire or maintain, for example, an instructed spacing.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is further disclosed by Bertram in at least column 10 lines 18-35 and column 17 lines 25-40 to have their system include, “the set of pre-trained neural networks are configured to autonomously determine the flight command, in a predetermined format, from unstructured sensor data.” Where they cite, “(40) In some embodiments, the learning system 256 includes a neural network. The neural network can include a plurality of layers each including one or more nodes, such as a first layer (e.g., an input layer), a second layer (e.g., an output layer), and one or more hidden layers. The neural network can include characteristics such weights and biases associated with computations that can be performed between nodes of layers.
(41) The machine learning engine 208 can be configured to train the neural network by providing the first input conditions to the first layer of the neural network. The neural network can generate a plurality of first outputs based on the first input conditions, such as by executing computations between nodes of the layers. The machine learning engine 208 can receive the plurality of first outputs, and modify a characteristic of the neural network to reduce a difference between the plurality of first outputs and the plurality of first response maneuvers.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman and Oder, by the teachings of Bertram where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft systems and the control of said systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Goodman and Oder by Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Bertram. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman and Oder to now include the neural network to control the aircraft in a better way as it would be able to help the autopilot to control the aircraft.
Regarding claim 6 where it is further disclosed by Bertram in at least columns 13 lines 55-column 14 line 64, to have their system also include the feature of, “the unstructured sensor data comprises an air traffic control (ATC) audio signal.”
Regarding claim 14 where it is disclosed by Goodman to have their system being able to:
“A method for control of an aircraft [at least figures 2A-B, where box 216 indicates that the system has an autopilot which controls the aircraft], the method comprising:
determining sensor information with a sensor suite of the aircraft [at least paragraphs 27-28 and figures 3-5, where it shows the display on the aircraft showing he aircraft and its current position as well as positions of other aircraft as well as speed, altitude data, radar data and GPS data];
based on the sensor information, determining a flight command with an autonomous computing system of onboard the aircraft using a set of pre-trained models of the autonomous computing system [at least paragraphs 31 & 36 where they describe the system having an auto-pilot mode that can carry out the instructions that are transmitted to the aircraft from ATC. Please see the following: “For example, the system may automatically load the clearance(s) and, based on the clearances, retrieve departure, arrival, or approach information, block 212. In another example, loading the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) may comprise, rendering or causing to be rendered, by the system, indicia of the airplane, an airplane to be followed, and a status indicating whether an instruction is being followed, block 212. Such displays are described below in reference to FIGS. 3-5. Also, the system may adjust one or more controls, such as speed or attitude settings, among many others, block 214. The amount of adjusting may be based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). In various embodiments, after loading and or adjusting, the system may cause the airplane to enter into auto-pilot mode, block 216.”];
receiving the flight command at an application program interface (API) which is partitioned from the autonomous computing system [see at least figures 3-5 and paragraphs 34-36, where the commands from ATC are loaded into aircraft after being received and then displayed to the pilot so that they can “accept” or “reject” them as described in paragraph 0035];
validating a format compliance of the flight command received at the API [at least paragraphs 0034-0036, where the commands from ATC are loaded into aircraft after being received and then displayed to the pilot so that they can “accept” or “reject” them as described in paragraph 0035.];
based on validation of the format compliance, automatically facilitating execution of the flight command [see at least paragraphs 0033-0036].”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Goodman nor Oder to have a pre trained models.
Bertram is directed to a system and method for machine learning of pilot behavior and in at least column 10 lines 18-35 and column 17 lines 25-40 they describe their system including a trained neural network/models. Where they cite, “(40) In some embodiments, the learning system 256 includes a neural network. The neural network can include a plurality of layers each including one or more nodes, such as a first layer (e.g., an input layer), a second layer (e.g., an output layer), and one or more hidden layers. The neural network can include characteristics such weights and biases associated with computations that can be performed between nodes of layers.
(41) The machine learning engine 208 can be configured to train the neural network by providing the first input conditions to the first layer of the neural network. The neural network can generate a plurality of first outputs based on the first input conditions, such as by executing computations between nodes of the layers. The machine learning engine 208 can receive the plurality of first outputs, and modify a characteristic of the neural network to reduce a difference between the plurality of first outputs and the plurality of first response maneuvers.”
Furthermore, claim 14 which is the method limitations for system claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reason as stated for claim 1 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman by the teachings of Bertram where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft systems and the control of said systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Goodman and by Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Bertram. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman to now include the neural network to control the aircraft in a better way as it would be able to help the autopilot to control the aircraft.
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Goodman, Oder or Bertram to include the feature of, “…an aircraft control system…”, “...onboard the aircraft, the aircraft computing system …” and “…the aircraft control system comprising an autonomous computing system onboard the aircraft and an application program interface (API) onboard the aircraft:...”
Komer is directed to an automatic speech recognition system and method for an aircraft. Where it is disclosed by Komer in at least paragraphs 0036 & 0043 to have their system including, “an aircraft control system…” and “..onboard the aircraft, the aircraft computing system …”. Furthermore, it is also disclosed by Komer in at least paragraphs 10-12 to have their system being able to display information on a screen which is interpreted to mean an “application program interface (API). They also disclose in at least paragraphs 39, 50 & 62 has their system also including the feature of having an autonomous computing system that can automatically control the aircraft. It is also disclosed by Komer in at least paragraphs 29-32 to have the system include numerous programs which are used by the aircraft for control said aircraft. This is read upon by applicants claim to, ““…an aircraft control system…”, “...onboard the aircraft, the aircraft computing system …” and “…the aircraft control system comprising an autonomous computing system onboard the aircraft and an application program interface (API) onboard the aircraft:...”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder or Bertram by the teachings of Komer where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling aircrafts. Where one would have looked to modify Goodman, Oder or Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Komer. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder or Bertram whom do not specifically have their systems include the use of an autonomous aircraft system, which is taught by Komer where the advantages of this is that the systems autopilot/autonomous system can control the flight and reduce the workload on the user/pilot of the aircraft and thus reduce the chances of fatigue of the pilot due to constant attention and workload flying a remote vehicle. Furthermore, the autonomous/autopilot system allows the vehicle to operate by its self if the vehicle lose communication with the remote operator and hence prevent an accident or collision with other objects is communications are lost.
Regarding claim 15 where it is disclosed by Goodman to have their system being able to, “[0015] FIG. 1 illustrates an overview of various embodiments of the present invention, receiving, by an airplane, clearances and/or instructions from a control system via a data link and displaying the received information. As illustrated, an air traffic control center (hereinafter, ATC) 102 may be adapted to provide one or more clearances and/or instructions to a system 106 of an airplane (hereinafter, system 106) through controller to pilot data link communication (hereinafter, CPDLC) 104 connections between a control system of ATC 102 and systems 106. System 106 may then facilitate the flight crew of the airplane in determining whether to accept or reject the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s), in one embodiment by displaying the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) to the flight crew. If accepted by the flight crew, system 106 may auto-load the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and may auto-adjust one or more airplane controls based on the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s). System 106 may also notify ATC 102 of the acceptance or rejection via CPDLC 104. In various embodiments, described further below in reference to FIGS. 3-5, system 106 may also be adapted to render, on one or more cockpit displays, indicia showing whether or not received instructions are being followed.”
Regarding claim 18 where it is further disclosed by Goodman to have their system also teach, “[0031] In some embodiments, after system 106 has loaded the clearance(s) and/or instruction(s) and/or adjusted controls, system 106 may cause the airplane to go into an auto-pilot mode to carry out the further actions in view of the information retrieved based on the clearance(s) and/or the instruction(s), carrying out, for example, a landing based on retrieved arrival information or a flight speed and pattern to maintain an instructed spacing.
[0032] Further, as is shown in FIGS. 3-5 and described in further detail below, indicia depicting whether received instructions are being met may be rendered on display devices. Such indicia may be rendered even before the instructions' acceptance, or may only be rendered after acceptance as a metric of success in carrying out the instructions. Such renderings by system 106 may, if the instructions are spacing instructions, indicate both the airplane having system 106 and another airplane to be followed, as well as indicia showing whether the desired spacing has been achieved and suggesting an action to take to achieve the spacing (i.e., speed up, slow down, etc.).” This is read upon by applicants claim to, “the sensor suite comprises a set of time-of-flight sensors and the sensor data comprises time-of-flight data from the set of time-of-flight sensors, wherein the autonomous computing system is configured to: identify features based on the time-of-flight data using a pre-trained model of the set; and autonomously determine the flight command based on the identified features.” Where figures 3-5 show that the aircraft has a radar system to allow it to see aircraft around it which are displayed on the screen shown in at least figure 3.
Claim(s) 6-8 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vizzini., US PG Pub 2008/0065275 A1.
Regarding claims 6 & 17 where all the limitations of claims 5 & 14 are disclosed by Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer, as described above. However it is not specifically disclosed by either Goodman, Oder nor Bertram, to have their system also include, “ the unstructured sensor data comprises an air traffic control (ATC) audio signal.”
Vizzini is directed to a method and system for controlling manned and unmanned aircraft using speech recognition tools. Where in at least paragraphs 23-25 & 20 they describe their system also including, “the unstructured sensor data comprises an air traffic control (ATC) audio signal.” Vizzini teaches at least, “[0020] The RLU 106 can contain speech recognition and response capabilities. Such capabilities enable the RES 100 to respond accurately to voice commands received from the ATC by converting, for example, the voice commands into computer text that is then processed by the RES 100. Further, the RLU 106 interfaces with other aircraft instruments (e.g., altimeter, airspeed, vertical velocity, GPS, transponder, etc.) via the instrument interface 104. When an incoming radio transmission is received, it is determined whether such transmission pertains to the UA. If it is determined that the radio transmission pertains to the UA, the UA RES 100 may respond to the ATC via the transceiver 110. Appropriate action is determined and performed by the RLU 106 when the radio transmission calls for a change to the current autopilot settings, the transceiver frequency and/or or the transponder code. The ATC can have control over the UA when the UA is flying in controlled air space.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the teachings of Vizzini, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling aircraft. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Vizzini. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer, whom do not specifically have their system allow control of the aircraft via ATC voice controls, as taught by Vizzini, where this would be beneficial if the aircraft was not responding to ATC commands in controlled airspace or the operator of the aircraft has become no responsive and thus allowing ATC to control the aircraft safely to land it.
Regarding claim 7 where all the limitations of claim 5 are disclosed by Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer as described above. However they do not specifically disclose the further limitation of, “the unstructured sensor data comprises time-of-flight data.”
Vizzini is directed to a method and system for controlling manned and unmanned aircraft using speech recognition tools. Where in at least paragraphs 18-19 & 20-25 and figure 3 they describe their system also including, “the unstructured sensor data comprises time-of-flight data.”
Vizzini teaches at least, [0018] The RES 100 allows an UA to safely operate in controlled airspace and to comply with all of an aviation authority's requirements for manned aircrafts. The air traffic controller may have the ability to direct and/or control all aircrafts in the airspace regardless of whether it is manned or unmanned. The control methodology of the RES 100 also addresses issues arising from see-and-avoid problems. In an embodiment, the RES 100 controls the UA operations in civilian airspace. As used herein, the UA RES 100 is a computer based unit that runs in parallel with other systems on an aircraft. The UA RES 100 can include a Response Logic Unit (RLU) 106, a transceiver 108, and/or a transponder 110. As used herein, the transponder refers to an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. An aircraft may have transponders to assist in identifying such aircrafts on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems. A transponder may receive signals from an uplink station (e.g., an ATC), and then convert the received signals to a new frequency. Such converted signals may be amplified, and then sent (downlinked) back to the ATC. The transponder may be configured with two-way interfaces (uplink and downlink) with the autopilot, and onboard sensors and instruments. The RLU 106 is the "smart" component that interprets ATC communication messages which are received by the RES 100. The RLU 106 then provides the corresponding response messages which are relayed to the ATC via the RES.
[0019] The RLU 106 can be developed using computer software that is recognizes and adheres to IFR requirements. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) as used herein refer to a set of regulations and procedures for flying an aircraft without the assumption that pilots will be able to see and avoid obstacles, terrain, and other air traffic. IFR can be an alternative to visual flight rules (VFR) where the pilot is primarily or exclusively responsible for see-and-avoid. Under IFR, navigation and control of the aircraft is done by instruments. While flying through clouds may be permitted by an aviation authority for an aircraft flying under IFR, such flying through clouds may be prohibited under VFR.” When the aircraft is operating under IFR the aircraft would have to use radar to be able to see other aircraft and fly safely as per required under Federal FAA regulation to allow the aircraft to even operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder and Bertram by the teachings of Vizzini, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling aircraft. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Goodman, Oder and Bertram by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Vizzini. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder and Bertram, whom do not specifically have their system allow control of the aircraft via ATC voice controls, as taught by Vizzini, where this would be beneficial if the aircraft was not responding to ATC commands in controlled airspace or the operator of the aircraft has become no responsive and thus allowing ATC to control the aircraft safely to land it.
Regarding claims 8 & 16 where all the limitations of claims 1 & 14 are disclosed by Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer as described above. Where they do not specifically disclose the further limitation of, “the flight command comprises a resolution advisory.”
Vizzini is directed to a method and system for controlling manned and unmanned aircraft using speech recognition tools. Where in at least paragraphs 17-19 & 21, they describe their system also including, “the flight command comprises a resolution advisory.”
Vizzini teaches at least, “[0017] In instrument flight rules (IFR) operations, communication between the air traffic controller (ATC) and the pilot is constant during the flight cycle. Such communication enables collision avoidance by ensuring that an aircraft adheres to a collision-free flight pattern. For redirection during flight from a previously filed flight plan, the ATC commands piloted vehicles through maneuvers during all aspects of IFR operations. The RES 100 receives radio messages from an ATC, executes directives based on the radioed messages, and reports back to the ATC that the messages have been received and are being executed. To the tower operator or ATC, there is no perceived difference in his/her communication with the unmanned aircraft than with a manned vehicle. The RES 100 is configured to hear the message and respond. Such embodiments described herein differs from that used to control the Global Hawk.RTM. by eliminating the role of the operator who is monitoring the flight.
[0018] The RES 100 allows an UA to safely operate in controlled airspace and to comply with all of an aviation authority's requirements for manned aircrafts. The air traffic controller may have the ability to direct and/or control all aircrafts in the airspace regardless of whether it is manned or unmanned. The control methodology of the RES 100 also addresses issues arising from see-and-avoid problems. In an embodiment, the RES 100 controls the UA operations in civilian airspace. As used herein, the UA RES 100 is a computer based unit that runs in parallel with other systems on an aircraft. The UA RES 100 can include a Response Logic Unit (RLU) 106, a transceiver 108, and/or a transponder 110. As used herein, the transponder refers to an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. An aircraft may have transponders to assist in identifying such aircrafts on radar and on other aircraft's collision avoidance systems. A transponder may receive signals from an uplink station (e.g., an ATC), and then convert the received signals to a new frequency. Such converted signals may be amplified, and then sent (downlinked) back to the ATC. The transponder may be configured with two-way interfaces (uplink and downlink) with the autopilot, and onboard sensors and instruments. The RLU 106 is the "smart" component that interprets ATC communication messages which are received by the RES 100. The RLU 106 then provides the corresponding response messages which are relayed to the ATC via the RES.
[0019] The RLU 106 can be developed using computer software that is recognizes and adheres to IFR requirements. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) as used herein refer to a set of regulations and procedures for flying an aircraft without the assumption that pilots will be able to see and avoid obstacles, terrain, and other air traffic. IFR can be an alternative to visual flight rules (VFR) where the pilot is primarily or exclusively responsible for see-and-avoid. Under IFR, navigation and control of the aircraft is done by instruments. While flying through clouds may be permitted by an aviation authority for an aircraft flying under IFR, such flying through clouds may be prohibited under VFR.” When the aircraft is operating under IFR the aircraft would have to use radar to be able to see other aircraft and fly safely as per required under Federal FAA regulation to allow the aircraft to even operate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the teachings of Vizzini, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of controlling aircraft. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Vizzini. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer, whom do not specifically have their system allow control of the aircraft via ATC voice controls, as taught by Vizzini, where this would be beneficial if the aircraft was not responding to ATC commands in controlled airspace or the operator of the aircraft has become no responsive and thus allowing ATC to control the aircraft safely to land it.
Claim(s) 9 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chircop et al., US PG Pub 2016/0019795 A1., (hereafter Chircop).
Regarding claims 9 & 19 where all the limitations of claims 1 & 14 are disclosed by Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer, as described above. Where they do not specifically disclose the further limitation of, “the autonomous computing system comprises a multi-core processor.”
Chircop is directed to a flight trajectory optimization and visualization tool and in at least paragraphs 53, 73, 76, 80 & 84, they describe their system including, “the autonomous computing system comprises a multi-core processor.”
Where they describe, “[0053] The data input device 15 is a device that includes the necessary hardware and/or software for receiving data including, for example, user input data and traffic data, via one or more wired and/or wireless connections to one or more internal and/or external data sources. The processor 13 may be, for example, a microprocessor capable of executing instructions included in computer readable code. The term ‘processor’, as used herein, may refer to, for example, a hardware-implemented data processing device having circuitry that is physically structured to execute desired operations including, for example, operations represented as code and/or instructions included in a program. Examples of the above-referenced hardware-implemented data processing device include, but are not limited to, a microprocessor, a central processing unit (CPU), a processor core, a multi-core processor; a multiprocessor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA).
[0073] When the optimization process for the selected section of the flight plan is complete, the optimization module 8 outputs the result to the output unit 6 of the tool 1. The output unit 6 formats the optimised trajectory in a format that can be used by the user 200 or the aircraft 210. Example formats of an optimised trajectory, which is useful for pilots and systems on board the aircraft 210 involve speed and altitude schedules, as this allows pilots a simple way to program aircraft systems such as the flight guidance and flight management systems. It is understood that the output unit 6 can re-format the optimised trajectory in different ways as may be appropriate for the particular application. For example, the output unit 6 also formats the data in tabular format for display by the visualisation module 5 in tabular format as shown in FIG. 4 and in graphical formats as shown in FIG. 5. Example data input to the optimizer 8 includes track miles to be flown in the trajectory segment to be optimized and trajectory segment start and end point altitudes. Such data may be extracted or derived from the flight plan.”
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the teachings of Chircop, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of aircraft control systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the use of a known technique to improve similar device in the same way, as taught by Chircop. Where in this instance the modification of Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer, whom do not specifically use a multi core processor for carrying out the steps for control of the aircraft, where the use of the multi-core processor would be advantages as it allows for redundancy and also improves the speed of processing data that is being used to control the aircraft which is critical and helps in control of the aircraft by autopilot systems.
Claim(s) 3 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lu US PG Pub 2005/0149721 A1.
Regarding claims 3 & 20 where all the limitations of claims 2 & 14 are disclosed by Goodman, Oder and Bertram as described above. Where they do not specifically disclose the feature of, “the API is configured to validate adherence of the flight command to the set of predetermined rules with a hash function validation or a checksum validation.”
Lu is directed to a method for speeding up packet filtering for control systems. Lu in at least paragraphs 4-7 & 23-24 discloses their system also having the feature of, “the API is configured to validate adherence of the flight command to the set of predetermined rules with a hash function validation or a checksum validation.”
Please see at least, “[0007] The present invention utilizes a search filter to solve the problems described above. "Search filter" is the method of searching words or documents proposed by Severance and Lohman in 1976. The principle of the method is that: selecting a Hash function, such as MD5 first; taking a value to be searched, such as "m", as the "key" of the Hash function, such as f(m) to perform Hush operation and obtain a proper data structure arrangement; and using the data structure to select the values to be checked. When a key is selected, it is not sure that the key can be fined in a search set according to the property of search filter, because the Hash space that the search filter uses is limited. On the other hand, when a key selected does not belong to a search set, the search filter determines that the key does not belong to the search set.
[0023] As the procedure S405 shows, the method extracts a source network r.sub.inet.sub.s from each firewall rule. In the procedure S410, the method converts the source network r.sub.inet.sub.s into the binary code (including bit values and addresses). In the procedure S415, the method searches for a set of M relative addresses b.sub.m (0.ltoreq.b.sub.m.ltoreq.L-1, 0.ltoreq.m.ltoreq.M-1) which have bit values "1" from the codes of the source network r.sub.inet.sub.s. In the procedure S420, the method sets each address having a bit value "1", source port r.sub.iport.sub.s and protocol r.sub.ip, to be the keys of the hash function and substitutes the keys into K specific hash functions h.sub.i (such as h.sub.i (b.sub.m, r.sub.iport.sub.s, r.sub.ip)) for hash calculation in order to get K*M values k.sub.j between 0 to (C*K*L)-1. These k.sub.j are the relative addresses pointing to a hash space H.sub.s in the source network. As the described in the procedure S425, the set of the relative addresses pointing to a hash space H.sub.s can express the characteristic values of the source network r.sub.inet.sub.s in the hash space H.sub.s. However, the keys of the hash function mentioned before are chosen by the user, but they should be at least one of the address having a bit value "1", source port r.sub.iport.sub.s and protocol r.sub.ip. For example, the key of the hash function is the address having a bit value "1" in the network.
[0024] Like the filtering procedure of the source network r.sub.inet.sub.s described before, the filtering procedures of the destination network r.sub.inet.sub.d for the same firewall rule r.sub.i are to repeat the procedures S400 to S250: by first converting the destination network r.sub.inet.sub.d into the binary code (including bit values and address), then setting W addresses b.sub.w (0.ltoreq.b.sub.w.ltoreq.L-1, 0.ltoreq.w.ltoreq.w-1) having bit value "1", destination port r.sub.iport.sub.d and protocol r.sub.ip as the keys of the hash function, and substituting the keys into K specific hash functions h.sub.i (such as h.sub.i (b.sub.w, r.sub.iport.sub.d, r.sub.ip)) for hash calculation in order to get K*M values k between 0 to (C*K*L)-1. These k.sub.j include the relative addresses pointing to a hash space H.sub.d in the destination network r.sub.inet.sub.d. The set of the relative addresses pointing to a hash space H.sub.d can express the characteristic value of the source network r.sub.inet.sub.s in the hash space H.sub.d. Notice that each hash space uses the same C, K and L, so the size of the hash space H.sub.d mentioned above equals the size of the hash space H.sub.s, and also equals sizes of other hash spaces.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the teachings of Lu, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of control systems. Where one would have been motivated to modify Goodman, Oder, Bertram and Komer by the feature of using hash functions for the purpose of, “overcome[ing] the disadvantages of the prior art, the present invention utilizes a search method of low cost before searching packets to find most well-behaved packets and let them pass the firewall, and leave a small amount of packets having problems checked by the conventional ways so as to lower searching cost without modifying any firewall rule.[see paragraph 0006]”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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. Where applicant has amended the independent claims to include features which were not previously presented in the claims and hence a new art was found to teach these features as described above in the rejection.
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 BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights