DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 11/11/2025.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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. Specifically, a new primary reference has been applied to teach the amendments filed 11/11/2025. See new rejections below.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 11, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bollapragada et al. (US 2013/0226373 A1), hereinafter Bollapragada.
Claim 1
Bollapragada discloses the claimed system comprising a control unit (see ¶0032, regarding that the disclosed methods are performed by a computer, processor, or FMS onboard the aircraft) configured to:
receive tail-specific information for an aircraft, wherein the tail-specific information includes information regarding actual performance and capabilities of the aircraft in contrast to any other aircraft (see ¶0025, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that the description of like parts of the first embodiment associated with Figure 2 applies to the second embodiment associated with Figure 3, where “performance data” is received in Figure 3, and the performance data is updated for each iteration in step 214, as described in ¶0030; ¶0015, regarding that performance data is aircraft specific data related to the flight, such as a unique tail number correlated to fuel flow, thrust, drag, and an operating envelope of the aircraft),
monitor operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight (see ¶0025, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that the description of like parts of the first embodiment associated with Figure 2 applies to the second embodiment associated with Figure 3, where “current state” is received in Figure 3, and the current state data is updated for each iteration in step 214, as described in ¶0030; ¶0014, regarding that current state data includes current operational state of the aircraft and/or a current positional state of the aircraft, such as latitude, longitude, altitude, flight phase, and location on the flight plan, and also includes time information, fuel information, and speed of the aircraft);
use the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine one or more changes to one or more of the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight (see ¶0030-0031, regarding that the updated flight plan, performance data, and current state data are used to define a set of acceptable predicted trajectories, such as the five lowest cost alternatives to the currently planned flight, such that selection of one of the acceptable predicted trajectories updates the flight plan data, so the aircraft may be flown along the selected trajectory), and
output an advisory to the aircraft during the flight, wherein the advisory includes the one or more changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0031, regarding that the method outputs five lowest cost alternatives, along with the cost and savings relative to the currently planned flight, such that one of the low cost trajectories may be selected from the set of acceptable predicted trajectory and the flight plan may be updated according to the selected trajectory; ¶0032, regarding that a user may directly interact with the process), and wherein the aircraft is operated according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0031, regarding that the aircraft is flown along the selected trajectory).
Claims 2 and 11
Bollapragada further discloses that the control unit is configured to automatically output the advisory without human intervention (see ¶0031, regarding that the lowest cost alternatives relative to the currently planned flight are output for selection). An “advisory” is known as a recommendation. In Bollapragada, it is clear from the method of Figure 3 that the output of the low cost trajectories (i.e. “advisory”) is performed automatically, and the subsequent selection of a low cost trajectory may be performed by a user.
Claims 4 and 13
Bollapragada further discloses that the operational aspects comprise one or more of airspeed, altitude, route, or cost index (see ¶0014, regarding that current state data includes current operational state of the aircraft and/or a current positional state of the aircraft, such as altitude, location on the flight plan, and speed of the aircraft; ¶0015, regarding that a cost index is also provided as part of the performance data).
Claims 5 and 14
Bollapragada further discloses that the operational aspects comprise the airspeed, the altitude, the route, and the cost index (see ¶0014, regarding that current state data includes current operational state of the aircraft and/or a current positional state of the aircraft, such as altitude, location on the flight plan, and speed of the aircraft; ¶0015, regarding that a cost index is also provided as part of the performance data).
Claims 6 and 15
Bollapragada further discloses that the control unit is further configured to show the advisory on a display of a user interface of the aircraft (see ¶0032, regarding that a user may directly interact with the process such that the outputs may be displayed in near real-time, where the outputs include the lowest cost alternatives relative to the currently planned flight, as described in ¶0031). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the “control unit” is provided onboard an aircraft (see ¶0032 of Bollapragada).
Claims 7, 16, and 20
Bollapragada further discloses that the control unit is configured to output the advisory in response to the one or more changes meeting one or more aspect deviation thresholds (see ¶0026-0028, with respect to steps 206 and 208 of Figure 3, regarding that the costs for the predicted trajectory must satisfy a cost threshold and the predicted trajectory must satisfy constraints in order for the predicted trajectory to be defined as an acceptable option, where the set of acceptable predicted trajectories are output, as described in ¶0030-0032).
Claim 10
Bollapragada discloses the claimed method, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19
Bollapragada discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause one or more control units comprising a processor, to perform operations (see ¶0032, regarding that the method is performed by computer or processor; Figure 3, depicting method 200) discussed in the rejection of claim 1. A “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is inherently provided in the computer discussed in ¶0032 of Bollapragada to perform the predefined “instructions” of Figure 3.
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollapragada in view of an alternative embodiment of Bollapragada described in ¶0032.
Claims 3 and 12
While the embodiment of Bollapragada in which the method is performed onboard the aircraft is applied to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 10, Bollapragada discloses an alternative embodiment in which the control unit is remote from the aircraft (see ¶0032, regarding that the method is performed by a suitable computer or processor on the ground, such that the low cost trajectories are provided to the aircraft via a wireless communication system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Bollapragada to be remote from the aircraft, in light of an alternative embodiment described in ¶0032 of Bollapragada, with the predictable result of using a more suitable computer for computing the low cost trajectories (¶0032 of Bollapragada) that may have more computing resources available than the onboard computer of the aircraft.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollapragada in view of Magnuson et al. (US 2025/0093161 A1), hereinafter Magnuson.
Claims 8 and 17
Bollapragada further discloses that the control unit is further configured to operate the aircraft according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0031, regarding that the aircraft is flown along the selected trajectory, and the determination of a low cost trajectory and flying the aircraft according may be repeated during flight such that the aircraft is always being flown in a low cost manner). However, Bollapragada does not explicitly disclose the aircraft operation as being performed automatically. Given that the “control unit” of Bollapragada may be an FMS (see ¶0032), it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to perform the aircraft operation of Bollapragada automatically, in light of Magnuson.
Specifically, Magnuson teaches that a FMS (similar to the control unit taught by Bollapragada) is configured to automatically operate aircraft 110 (similar to the aircraft taught by Bollapragada) according to a modified flight plan (similar to the changes to one or more of the operational aspects taught by Bollapragada) (see ¶0067, regarding that the FMS automatically controls the aircraft to fly a trajectory specified by the modified flight path).
While the modified flight plans in Bollapragada and Magnuson are generated using different methods, it is the technique of using a similar control unit to automatically operate an aircraft according to similar changes to operational aspects that is modified by Magnuson; therefore, the particular method of modifying a flight plan does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Bollapragada and Magnuson are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying flight plans that improve operational efficiency during flight, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the feature in which the control unit is further configured to operate the aircraft according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects taught Bollapragada to be performed automatically, in the same manner that the FMS of Magnuson automatically controls an aircraft according to a modified flight plan, with the predictable results of controlling the aircraft to automatically follow the trajectory of the modified flight plan (¶0067 of Magnuson), thus reducing manual operation burdens of the flight crew.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bollapragada in view of Kauffman et al. (US 2023/0129613 A1), hereinafter Kauffman.
Claims 9 and 18
Bollapragada does not further disclose that the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system. However, no particular processes pertaining to artificial intelligence or machine learning are claimed, and therefore, it would be obvious to modify the “control unit” of Bollapragada to be configured as an artificial intelligence or machine learning, in light of Kauffman.
Specifically, Kauffman teaches processing circuitry 140, defined as being implemented onboard aircraft 118 in ¶0036 (similar to the control unit taught by Bollapragada), that suggests changes in course, speed, altitude, and geographic waypoints to improve the planned flight path during flight (see ¶0035-0036) and is implemented as an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (see ¶0043, regarding that the system includes a trained machine learning system, e.g., a neural network or similar artificial intelligence system configured to operate using processing circuitry onboard aircraft 118 for generating the improved flight path).
While updates to the flight plans in Bollapragada and Kauffmann are performed using different methods, it is the modification of the control unit as an artificial intelligence or machine learning system that is modified by Kauffman; therefore, the particular methods used in generating updates to the flight plan do not influence this combination. No particular AI or ML-related operations are claimed to be performed on the received data.
Since the systems of Bollapragada and Kauffman are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing updates to aircraft flight plans in order to improve efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control unit of Bollapragada to be an artificial intelligence or machine learning system, in the same manner that the processing circuitry of Kauffman is configured as a combination of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, with the predictable result of using known systems that employ AI techniques capable of suggesting decision points that lead to better flights with respect to fuel, time, and hazard exposure (¶0034 of Kauffman).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Shamasundar et al. (US 2025/0131834 A1) teaches providing recommendations of modifications of an active flight plan (see abstract), Ella (US 2025/0046195 A1) teaches the use of an artificial intelligent module to suggest more efficient navigational input and altitudes (see ¶0062), Burke et al. (US 2016/0180715 A1) teaches displaying solutions generated for optimizing an aircraft’s route and altitude in an automatic mode, as well as providing controls for the pilot to adjust the automatic mode settings (see ¶0060), and Wing (“The TASAR Project: Launching Aviation on an Optimized Route Toward Aircraft Autonomy,” December 2019, NASA) teaches generating flight path recommendations and their predicted outcomes to fuel burn and flight time for display on a user interface (see page 48, sections 9.2.4 and 9.2.5).
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661