DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 3/3/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 3/3/2026, the objections of claims 9 and 17 have been withdrawn. A new claim objection with respect to claim 1 is made below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Due to the amendment filed 3/3/2026, the rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 3/3/2026, new prior art rejections are provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a dash (“-“) in between the limitations of “application” and “during” in the twelfth line of claim 1. This seems to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Munck et al. (US 2021/0065120 A1), hereinafter De Munck, in view of Cook (“What is an electronic flight folder,” May 15, 2023, Bytron Aviation Systems), hereinafter Cook, and Gowda (US 2020/0134940 A1), hereinafter Gowda.
Claim 1
De Munck discloses the claimed computer-implemented method of generating tailored fuel and weight calculations (see ¶0010, regarding that a configuration file is created by an administrator and contains links to a number of sub-configuration files, which can be executed by a client application for setting the parameters of a specific section of a vehicle operations plan, e.g., setting the parameters relating to fuel and weight calculations), the method comprising using a number of processors (see ¶0079, regarding the “modules” refer to any type of computing device such as a server or computer for processing and routing data) to perform receiving input of a configuration file that defines a customized formula for fuel and weight calculations for an aircraft mission (see ¶0080, regarding that calling module 110 retrieves a configuration file from third repository 107 associated with the selected journey leg, where the configuration file includes instructions for calling module 110 to retrieve vehicle operations plan data comprising static data and user modifiable input parameters from fourth repository 312 and multiple scripts from fourth repository 312 relating to aircraft specific fuel and weight calculations for execution by the client application 517 by calculation module 721 based on the retrieved vehicle operations plan data, as described in ¶0081 and ¶0010), wherein the formula references base category values in an electronic flight folder (see ¶0085, regarding that calculation module 721 calculates the initial values of the user modifiable input parameters based on the vehicle operations plan data and calculation scripts linked to the configuration file; ¶0080, with respect to the example in Figure 9, regarding the display of the user modifiable input parameters 922 of ZFMI weight, FOB weight, TOM weight, LDM weight, Block weight, and uplift, where initial values have been calculated by calculation module 721 of client application 517). The “base category values” are taught by the user modifiable input parameters, represented as variables in Figure 9. Specifically, the user modifiable input parameter of ZMFI weight is a “base category value,” not its value of 14,115.
The user modifiable input parameters of De Munck may be reasonably interpreted as stored “in an electronic flight folder,” given that De Munck retrieves a configuration file in combination with the user modifiable input parameters and static data from databases to generate an interactive vehicle operations plan (see ¶0079) on an electronic flight bag (EFB) application running on a client terminal (see ¶0034) accessible by a pilot (see ¶0033), which is analogous to how a known electronic flight folder (EFF) automatically collates data from multiple sources to create a digital briefing that is accessed by a pilot through an EFB. In case this inherency is not clearly represented in De Munck, Cook is applied in combination with De Munck to teach a similar operation of automatically collating similar “base category values” in an electronic flight folder to generate similar results.
Specifically, Cook teaches the known technique of automatically collating data that includes operational flight plans, weather charts, airfield data, fuel, etc. (similar to the base category values taught by De Munck) in an electronic flight folder (see first through fourth paragraphs on first and second pages under “what is an electronic flight folder” section). Similar to De Munck, Cook teaches the collated data loaded onto an electronic flight bag (EFB) of a tablet device as updatable pre-flight briefing data provided to a pilot (see first through fourth paragraphs on first and second pages under “what is an electronic flight folder” section).
Since the systems of De Munck and Cook are directed to the same purpose, i.e., providing a digital collection of pre-flight briefing data to a pilot on an EFB, 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 base category values of De Munck to be in an electronic flight folder, in the same manner that similar values of Cook are collated in an electronic flight folder, with the predictable result of providing the benefits of compliance and auditing capabilities known to electronic flight folders (see “benefits of an electronic flight folder” section on the tenth page of Cook).
De Munck further discloses that the claimed method comprises receiving input of changes to variables utilized by a syntax of the configuration file, wherein the changes correspond to changes to the customized formula for fuel and weight calculations for an aircraft mission by refining the base category values (see ¶0012, regarding that an administrator easily updates the content of any of the individual repositories, where user modifiable input parameters are provided in the fourth repository 312, as described in ¶0081, and the configuration file is provided in the third repository 107; ¶0031, regarding that the administrator is provided with an administrator module comprising a GUI in order to access and to adapt the data stored in the database module; ¶0010, regarding that an administrator creates the configuration file and maintains the data stored in the different repositories of the database module, including the third and fourth repositories). Given that the configuration file of De Munck includes fuel and weight calculations and is associated with user modifiable input parameters (see at least ¶0010), any updates made to the associated user modifiable input parameters (i.e. “base category values”) by the administrator via the GUI may be interpreted as “input of changes to variables utilized by a syntax of the configuration file.”
De Munck further discloses that the claimed method comprises loading the configuration file into an electronic flight bag application on a mobile device (see ¶0081, regarding that the configuration is file is provided to the client application 517 by the calling module 110, where the client application 517 is installed on a mobile terminal, as described in ¶0079, and the client terminal is an electronic device comprising an electronic flight bag (EFB) software application, as described in ¶0034), and interpreting, by the electronic flight bag application during an in-flight phase of an aircraft, the customized formula in the configuration file to calculate tailored fuel and weight for the aircraft mission (see ¶0085, with respect to Figure 7, regarding that calculation module 721 of client application 517 calculates initial values of user modifiable input parameters of the vehicle operations plan based on the calculation scripts linked to the configuration file forwarded by calling module 110, where the scripts relate to fuel and weight calculations for a journey leg from an origin to a destination, as described in ¶0010; ¶0086, with respect to Figure 11b, regarding performing recalculations when the pilot has edited the user modifiable input parameters; ¶0034, regarding the client terminal is an electronic device comprising an electronic flight bag (EFB) software application; ¶0002, regarding that the invention enables a pilot to manage the operation settings of an aircraft during the journey period). The calculated initial values and/or recalculated values of De Munck are applied to teach the “tailored fuel and weight for the aircraft mission,” given that the scripts pertain to aircraft-specific weight and fuel calculations for a given journey leg associated with an origin and destination (see ¶0081, ¶0010).
De Munck further discloses that the claimed method comprises displaying on a computer device, during the in-flight phase of the aircraft, the tailored fuel and weight calculations in customized fields in a customized layout in an interactive user interface of the computer device (see ¶0083, regarding that client application 517 preinstalled on the client terminal 102 is configured to generate and display the vehicle operations planning tool, defined as arranged for interacting with a qualified registered user via a GUI for the adaptation of a vehicle operations plan comprising a set of user modifiable input parameters that pertain to weight and fuel calculations in ¶0010; Figure 9, depicting an example of “customized fields in a customized layout;” ¶0002, regarding that the invention enables a pilot to manage the operation settings of an aircraft during the journey period).
De Munck further discloses that a historical database stores historical remarks made by qualified registered users concerning the same vehicle and journey leg operated under similar conditions (see ¶0018), where the invention is applicable during a journey period of the aircraft (see ¶0002), such that it may be reasonably gleaned that De Munck further discloses receiving, during the in-flight phase of the aircraft, information related to the flight via the interactive user interface of the computer device, and providing the received information during a post-flight phase of the aircraft, where the historical database may reasonably be populated by remarks of the pilot associated with the client application. However, if this feature is not clearly disclosed by De Munck, these limitations lack a clear functional relationship to the preceding elements; therefore, prior art may be reasonably combined to teach the general technique of receiving information via a user interface during flight and providing the information after flight, in light of Gowda.
Specifically, Gowda teaches the known technique of receiving, during the in-flight phase of aircraft system 100 (similar to the aircraft of De Munck), information related to the flight via touchscreen interface 102 (similar to the interactive user interface of the computer device of De Munck) (see ¶0025, regarding user input data received from touchscreen interface 102 is stored with an associated time stamp and integrated with other flight data received from onboard avionics systems 104, which is stored by flight data recorder (FDR) 106, as described in ¶0030), and providing the received information during a post-flight phase of aircraft system 100 (see ¶0002, regarding the recorded data of a flight data recorder provides insight into operation of the aircraft for subsequent investigation and analysis, where the data in FDR 106 may be transmitted to a database, as described in ¶0024). The FDR of Gowda may be reasonably interpreted as a traditional black box, in light of ¶0024 that describes its data storage element as being configured to withstand mechanical impacts or other adverse conditions. Further, ¶0025 of Gowda defines the data storage element as being configured to store data in a first in, first out manner, which is typical of recorders that keep a finite local window of data, overwriting old data as new data comes in, and further suggests local onboard retention rather than continuous offloading.
In De Munck, a pilot provides input to a user interface of a user terminal for editing user modifiable input parameters associated with fuel and weight calculations. In Gowda, a pilot provides input to a user interface, where the input is stored in a flight data recorder for later retrieval. However, it is the simple technique of receiving information via a user interface during flight and providing the information after flight that is modified by Gowda; therefore, the additional functions that a user interface may be capable of performing does not influence this combination. As discussed above, this limitation lacks a clear functional relationship to the preceding elements.
Since the systems of De Munck and Gowda are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing an interactive user interface onboard an aircraft, 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 system of De Munck to further perform receiving, during the in-flight phase of the aircraft, information related to the flight via the interactive user interface of the computer device, and providing the received information during a post-flight phase of the aircraft, in light of Gowda, with the predictable result of further providing a better understanding of the pilot’s actions or behaviors to better facilitate retrospective investigations and improve accuracy or reliability of the resulting conclusions regarding the pilot’s operation of the aircraft (¶0003 of Gowda).
Claims 2, 10, and 18
De Munck further discloses that the syntax of the configuration file allows users to add clarifying variables to the referenced base category values (see ¶0010, regarding that the user-modifiable input parameters of the vehicle operation plan are configured based on the selection of at least one configuration file from the third repository, where the administrator easily updates the content of any of the individual repositories, as described in ¶0012). The “users” may be defined by any person who assume the role of administrator.
Claims 3, 11, and 19
De Munck further discloses that the clarifying variables are applied to a number of configuration elements in the configuration file that correspond to the referenced base category values (see ¶0010, regarding that a configuration file is created by an administrator and contains links to a number of sub-configuration files, which can be executed by a client application for setting the parameters of a specific section of a vehicle operations plan, e.g., setting the parameters relating to fuel and weight calculations; ¶0080, with respect to Figure 9, depicting an example of a plurality of user modifiable parameters 922).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
De Munck further discloses that the configuration file comprises an extensible markup language (XML) configuration file (see ¶0010, regarding that the configuration file may be an XML file).
Claims 6 and 14
De Munck further discloses that the computer device comprises the mobile device (see ¶0079, regarding that client terminals are configured as mobile terminals).
Claims 7, 15, and 22
De Munck further discloses that the customized layout comprises a tabular format (see Figure 9, depicting elements arranged in columns and rows).
Claims 8, 16, and 23
De Munck further discloses notifying ground crew personnel to add fuel according to the tailored fuel and weight for the aircraft mission (see ¶0080, regarding that a change in fuel by a pilot is notified to at least the ground crew responsible for fueling, where changes in fuel are made via the user modifiable parameters via the GUI representing vehicle operations plan tool 800, depicted in Figure 9).
Claim 9
The combination of De Munck, Cook, and Gowda discloses the claimed system (see Figures 3 and 7 of De Munck) for generating tailored fuel and weight calculations (see ¶0010, regarding that a configuration file is created by an administrator and contains links to a number of sub-configuration files, which can be executed by a client application for setting the parameters of a specific section of a vehicle operations plan, e.g., setting the parameters relating to fuel and weight calculations) comprising a storage device that stores program instructions, and one or more processors operably connected to the storage device and configured to execute the program instructions (see ¶0057-0058 of De Munck, regarding a memory of a computing device comprises software code for performing the steps of the computer implemented method) as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17
The combination of De Munck, Cook, and Gowda discloses the claimed computer program product (see ¶0057-0058 of De Munck, regarding the invention is achieved by providing a computer program product directly loadable into a memory of a computing device) for generating tailored fuel and weight calculations (see ¶0010, regarding that a configuration file is created by an administrator and contains links to a number of sub-configuration files, which can be executed by a client application for setting the parameters of a specific section of a vehicle operations plan, e.g., setting the parameters relating to fuel and weight calculations), the computer product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied thereon (see ¶0058 of De Munck, regarding that software code portions of the computer product perform the steps of the computer implemented method; claim 26) to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Munck in view of Cook and Gowda, and in further view of Belmonte (US 2010/0100745 A1), hereinafter Belmonte.
Claims 5, 13, and 21
Cook further teaches that the EFB provided on a tablet device (similar to the electronic flight bag application taught by De Munck) receives the electronic flight folder from a crew briefing and flight monitoring application (see “instantly refresh EFF data” and “ground communication with pilots” sections on the sixth and seventh pages of Cook, regarding the automatic updates of the EFF file). In case the application that performs automatic updates to the EFF cannot be reasonably interpreted as a “flight monitoring application,” Belmonte is applied to teach the known technique of automatically updating an EFF for pre-flight briefing and during flight.
Specifically, Belmonte teaches sending an EFF flight folder 3 (similar to the electronic flight folder taught by De Munck) to an airplane 3 before the flight (i.e. crew briefing) from ground station 1 over network 23 with the aid of computers in briefing room 27 (see ¶0103-0105, with respect to Figure 7; ¶0101) and sending updates to EFF flight folder 3 of an airplane 3 during the flight (i.e. flight monitoring) from ground station 1 over network 23 (see ¶0108-0111, with respect to Figure 8), and therefore, ground station 1 that sends EFF flight folder 3 may reasonably be interpreted as comprising a crew briefing and flight monitoring application, so as to send the EFF flight folder 3 before and during flight.
Since the systems of Cook and Belmonte are directed to the same purpose, i.e. loading and performing updates to an EFF of an aircraft, 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 electronic flight bag application taught by De Munck that receives the electronic flight folder taught by Cook to be from a crew briefing and flight monitoring application, in the same manner that the EFF flight folder of Belmonte is received before the flight and updated during the flight of an aircraft, with the predictable result of updating files on the airplane while on the ground or in flight (¶0108 of Belmonte) in response to critical updates (“Ground communication with pilots” section on the eighth page of Cook) known to influence safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Allen (US 2007/0032921 A1) teaches an electronic flight bag system that implements an application for determining an aircraft’s fuel efficiency (see ¶0020), Williams et al. (US 11,048,389 B2) teaches displaying an output of a data function based on a received configuration file during flight (see abstract), where the data function includes an estimation of the current amount of fuel (see col. 16, lines 31-44), Stefani (US 2009/0192846 A1) teaches an electronic flight bag that performs weight and balance calculations (see ¶0025), and Briand et al. (US 2021/0374101 A1) teaches loading computer files from a remote distribution system on aircraft devices that include electronic flight bags (see ¶0059-0060) that may pertain to aircraft weight and balance computation applications (see ¶0124).
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