DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 4/22/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 7, 16, and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-23 are new claims.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
On page 6 of Remarks filed 4/22/2026, the Applicant contends that Bollapragada does not teach “outputting, by the control unit, an advisory to the aircraft during the flight only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner agrees. A detailed discussion of how the closest prior art, including Bollapragada, fails to teach the claimed invention is provided in the allowable subject matter section below. Further issues are presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that prevent the present application from being in a condition of allowance.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites the limitation the method of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 is a “system,” and claim 10 is a “method.” The examiner believes this to be a typographical error, in which this limitation should instead recite “the method of claim 10.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites the limitation of output an advisory to the aircraft during the flight only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index. The limitation of “only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds,” such that the aspect deviation thresholds are defined as including a set of defined changes, i.e., “a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index,” requires the system to satisfy the criteria defined by the entire set in order to “output an advisory.” However, the Applicant’s disclosure does not support this particular embodiment. Specifically, the specification filed 1/24/2024 recites in paragraph [0038]:
“In at least one example, the control unit 102 can be configured to output an advisory in response to a change in one or more operational aspects meeting (such as equaling and/or exceeding) a predetermined aspect deviation threshold. For example, the aspect deviation threshold can be a change in altitude of more than 1000 feet. Optionally, the change in altitude can be less than 1000 feet (such as 500 feet) or more than 1000 feet (such as 5000 feet). As another example, the aspect deviation threshold can be change in airspeed of 50 miles per hour. Optionally, the change in airspeed can be less than 50 miles per hour (such as 25 miles per hour) or more than 50 miles per hour (such as 100 miles per hour). As another example, the aspect deviation threshold can be a change in route having a change in heading of +/−5 degrees. Optionally, the change in heading can be greater or less than +/−5 degrees, such as +/−2 degrees, or +/−10 degrees. As another example, the aspect deviation threshold can be a change in cost index of +/−10%. Optionally, the change in cost index can be greater or less than +/−10%, such as +/−5%, or +/−20%.”
Cited above, the specification confirms that each threshold example is introduced separately and acts as an independent, alternative trigger for outputting the advisory. The specification does not describe an embodiment in which a combination of “a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index” are required to meet their respective thresholds prior to triggering the advisory output, e.g., if a change in altitude is more than 1000 feet, no advisory is output until the change in airspeed, route, and cost index also meet their respective thresholds.
Further, there is no disclosure of a collective comparison of all changes to all of the aspect deviation thresholds, as discussed in detail in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
To align with the specification, this limitation could be amended to recite:
“…maintain an exclusive set of aspect deviation thresholds consisting of a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index, and
output an advisory to the aircraft during the flight only in response to at least one of the changes meeting at least one of the defined change in altitude, the defined change in airspeed, the defined change in route, and the defined change in cost index…”
This proposed limitation is provided as merely exemplary and has been constructed based on a perceived intention of the amendment filed 4/22/2026.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons. Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency, claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claim 10 by dependency, and claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for incorporating the errors of claim 19 by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are 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.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
monitor operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight,
use the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine changes to the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight, and
output an advisory to the aircraft during the flight only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index (emphasis added).
Because the limitation of “changes” is plural and the limitation of “aspect deviation thresholds” is plural, a collective comparison is implied, i.e. all of the changes are collectively compared to all of the aspect deviation thresholds. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that units associated with changes in altitude, airspeed, route, and cost index are fundamentally distinct, such that their associated thresholds would also be fundamentally distinct; therefore, this claim is structurally indefinite.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons. Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency, claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 10 by dependency, and claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 19 by dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record, Bollapragada et al. (US 2013/0226373 A1), hereinafter Bollapragada, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed method, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and system comprising:
a control unit 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,
monitor operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight,
use the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine changes to the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight, and
output an advisory to the aircraft during the flight only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index, wherein the advisory includes the one or more changes to the one or more of the operational aspects, and wherein the aircraft is operated according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects.
As discussed in the Office Action mailed 3/4/2026, Bollapragada teaches a similar system that receives 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 ¶0030; ¶0015), monitor operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight (see ¶0025), use the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine changes to the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight, and (see ¶0030-0031), 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; ¶0032), and wherein the aircraft is operated according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0031), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. However, Bollapragada teaches the “changes to the operational aspects” as inherently included within the set of acceptable predicted trajectories (see ¶0030-0031) without comparison of changes pertaining to altitude, airspeed, route, and cost index to “aspect deviation thresholds” that include “a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index,” as claimed. While the constraints in Bollapragada are defined as including maximum deviation from current flight level or maximum deviation from current speed (see ¶0022), these constraints serve as feasibility bounds, not as a measure of improving efficiency, as claimed.
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 4/22/2026, additional prior art have been identified that include Westervelt et al. (US 2018/0286254 A1), hereinafter Westervelt, and Meier et al. (US 2018/0268722 A1), hereinafter Meier.
Specifically, Westervelt teaches a similar system that receives 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 ¶0035-0036, with respect to step 305 of Figure 3, regarding that flight data for a prescribed flight is obtained, where the flight data includes tail specific characteristics of the aircraft including accurate performance and operational values for the particular aircraft), monitor operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight (see ¶0040, with respect to step 310 of Figure 3, regarding that current measurements of the aircraft are obtained from sensors of the aircraft, where multiple sensors are used to measure certain properties of the aircraft and/or environment and operational parameters and/or outputs of the aircraft, as described in ¶0022), use the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine changes to the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight (see ¶0041, with respect to step 315 of Figure 3, regarding that a cost optimal control input for the prescribed flight is determined to minimize a direct operating cost (DOC) of the prescribed flight for the aircraft based on the obtained flight data from step 305, the current measurements received in step 310, and a mathematical model accurately representing an actual operational performance of the specific aircraft, where the optimized control input may be further adjusted to account for the dynamics of the specific aircraft, as described in ¶0042, with respect to step 320), 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, and wherein the aircraft is operated according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0043, with respect to step 325 of Figure 3, regarding that the adjusted optimized control input is transmitted to the aircraft’s steering and control function, so as to minimize DOC). While Westervelt teaches the use of transient performance limits for the particular aircraft (see ¶0031), these serve as boundary conditions and do not trigger the output of the advisory; therefore, Westervelt is further silent regarding any evaluation of “the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index,” as claimed.
Meier teaches a similar system that receives 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 ¶0029, regarding that processing is performed using a predetermined flight model of the expected performance of the particular aircraft, where the expected performance is used in step 220 for comparison, as described in ¶0030, with respect to step 220 of Figure 2), monitors operational aspects of the aircraft during a flight (see ¶0030, with respect to step 210 of Figure 2, regarding that in-flight performance characteristics are monitored), uses the tail-specific information for the aircraft to determine changes to the operational aspects to improve an efficiency of an operation of the aircraft during the flight (see ¶0030, with respect to steps 220 and 230 of Figure 2, regarding that the current operating performance parameters are compared to the expected performance to identify parameter changes necessary to optimize efficiency), 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, and wherein the aircraft is operated according to the changes to the one or more of the operational aspects (see ¶0030, with respect to step 240 of Figure 2, regarding that any identified parameter changes are identified and displayed via flight deck displays 122 for selective implementation of the one or more parameter changes). While the current efficiency level is compared with the expected efficiency level to implement specific changes in speed, altitude, aircraft configuration, etc. (see ¶0030), Meier does teach that the advisory output is triggered in response to these changes meeting particular thresholds and thus, Meier does not further teach that the advisory is output “only in response to the changes meeting aspect deviation thresholds, wherein the aspect deviation thresholds include a defined change in altitude, a defined change in airspeed, a defined change in route, and a defined change in cost index,” as claimed.
Further relevant prior art include Prosser (US 2023/01204582 A1) that teaches generating an adjustment for an energy state model that is used to correct for actual aircraft performance along a potential trajectory of the aircraft (see ¶0029, with respect to Figure 2), and Suddreth et al. (US 2019/0164436 A1) that teaches suggesting preemptive actions that include recommended changes to speed, altitude, and other flight parameters (see ¶0059).
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date.
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), and 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),
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
Prosecution Insights