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 . Claims 1-29 are pending in the application, 1-10 and 20-28 are withdrawn from consideration, and 11-19 and 29 are examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 2/10/26.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section II. filed on 2/10/26, regarding Claim Objections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 2/10/26. Claim Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section III. filed on 2/10/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are moot in view of amendments filed 2/10/26. Claim 14 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Section IV. filed on 2/10/26, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are moot in view of amendments filed 2/10/26. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Sections V. and VI. filed on 2/10/26, regarding 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 2/10/26. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Knapp et al. (US 2016/0236790) below.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear as to how the candidate speeds can have both the best reduction in delay and the lowest fuel cost as well as how multiple candidate speeds can have the same lowest fuel costs while also having the best reduction in delay. The Specification (¶121-122) discusses the use of cost-benefit analysis which utilizes a cost index but does not elaborate on how the candidate speeds may have both the best fuel cost and best time reduction.
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.
Claims 11-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballin et al. (US 2013/0080043) in view of Knapp et al. (US 2016/0236790).
Regarding claims 11 and 29, Ballin discloses a system for generating flight optimizing trajectories including a flight operation management system/computer implemented method comprising (Abstract):
a computer system (¶99); and
a speed manager located in the computer system, wherein the speed manager in the computer system is configured to continuously execute the following in a flight (¶94-99 and ¶140 – TAP module corresponding to the recited speed manager where the TAP module automatically performs a continuous assessment of opportunities for improving the performance of the flight according to any predetermined goals and/or parameters specified by the pilot prior to or during the flight.):
identify a delay in an arrival time for reaching a destination location for a current flight of an aircraft (¶168 – traffic conflict and weather hazard causing the aircraft to reroute causing a delay in its predicted arrival over its next waypoint corresponding to the recited delay in an arrival time for reaching a destination location for a current flight); and
determine a new speed for that reduces the delay during the current flight of the aircraft (¶148 and ¶158-168 – trajectory optimization for modifying a flight route includes speed adjustments to make up as much of this lost time as possible while still including other performance metrics into the optimization including fuel efficiencies for the particular aircraft along the particular route/new route),
While Ballin does disclose determining a new speed to optimize fuel efficiency and delay reduction, it does not explicitly use engine and maintenance data in the optimization.
However, Knapp discloses a system for optimizing an airpath for an airplane including wherein the new speed based on a state of the aircraft that optimizes a number of performance metrics for the aircraft based upon an aircraft specific fuel consumption value continuously generated, by a machine learning model in an aircraft specific fuel consumption model for the aircraft configured to update an aircraft specific fuel consumption value based upon (¶239, ¶310-322, ¶401 - powertrain module utilizing neural networks corresponding to the recited machine learning model which continuously transmits and processes a range of state and performance information/data to continuously adjust controls to deliver optimal airspeed corresponding to the new speed based on performance metrics and fuel consumption metrics):
the state of the aircraft (¶239 - state and performance information/data),
an engine operating history (¶289 – powertrain performance logs and history logs),
a maintenance history of engines on the aircraft (¶289 – powertrain maintenance logs), and
parts replaced on the aircraft (¶289 – lifecycle and maintenance records includes the last time the part was replaced); and
control the aircraft to fly at the new speed (¶598 – fully autonomous flight implicitly controls the aircraft at the determined control speeds).
The combination of the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data including the specific engine and maintenance history data based flight path optimization of Knapp fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data and the specific engine and maintenance history data based flight path optimization of Knapp in order to enable high-frequency operations at optimal efficiency while supporting safe operation of the powertrain, through appropriate fault isolation and recovery mechanisms (Knapp - ¶103).
Regarding claim 12, Ballin further discloses wherein the number of performance metrics selected from at least one of a fuel consumption or a maximum range cruise (¶14 and ¶142 – flight trajectory can be optimized based on different criteria including fuel consumption while taking into consideration aircraft capabilities corresponding to the recited maximum range cruise. The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Ballin further discloses wherein the speed manager is configured to identify the delay and determine the new speed as the state of the aircraft changes (¶158-168 – new route is determined including speed changes upon detection of a weather event or traffic conflict causing a delay in arrival time which updates based on real time aircraft information corresponding to the recited state of the aircraft as well as updates to the predicted causes for the rerouting including weather clearing out etc.).
Regarding claim 14, Ballin further discloses wherein in determining the new speed, the speed manager is configured to (¶148 and ¶158-168 – trajectory optimization for modifying a flight route includes speed adjustments):
determine fuel cost for candidate speeds that reduce the delay using the state of the aircraft and the aircraft specific fuel consumption model for the aircraft; select, from among the candidate speeds that reduce the delay, candidate speeds that have a lowest fuel cost; and select the new speed that provides a best reduction in the delay from among the candidate speeds that have a lowest fuel cost and reduce the delay (¶156-168 and ¶206-212 – new path is selected based on selected optimization preferences prioritizing making up as much lost time due to the delay corresponding to the recited reduce the delay while still saving fuel corresponding to the recited lowest fuel cost that provides a best reduction in the delay where the optimization criteria may include minimum fuel required or minimum flight time, among other parameters and the newly calculated trajectories including new speeds must be superior to the previous trajectories to be selected corresponding to the recited candidate speeds that reduce the delay as well as utilizing the weighted optimization criteria for minimum fuel required and minimum flight time corresponding to the recited selecting the lowest fuel cost and best reduction in the delay depending on what objectives are most important).
Regarding claim 15, Ballin does not explicitly disclose utilizing a position of a horizontal stabilizer of the aircraft, however Knapp further discloses wherein the state of the aircraft comprises a position of a horizontal stabilizer on the aircraft (¶446-452 – flap settings corresponding to the recited position of a horizontal stabilizer).
The combination of the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data based flight path optimization of Knapp fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data based flight path optimization of Knapp in order to enable high-frequency operations at optimal efficiency while supporting safe operation of the powertrain, through appropriate fault isolation and recovery mechanisms (Knapp - ¶103).
Regarding claim 16, Ballin further discloses wherein the state of the aircraft comprises: an altitude of the aircraft, a gross weight of the aircraft, and an air temperature of an environment around the aircraft (¶148, ¶186, and ¶196-198 – TAP module generates 4D trajectory estimates over the flight plan corresponding to the recited state of the aircraft comprising aircraft position information including latitude, longitude, altitude corresponding to the recited altitude of the aircraft, real-time weight corresponding to the recited gross weight of the aircraft, and weather radar information including atmospheric wind field and temperature data corresponding to the recited air temperature).
Regarding claim 17, Ballin does not explicitly disclose the recited details of the aircraft state as claimed, however Knapp further discloses wherein the state of the aircraft comprises all of: air angle of attack, horizontal stabilizer position, and total fuel weight (¶170-179, ¶446-452, and TABLE-US-00003 – calculating VCLmax (maximum lift coefficient speed) utilizing wind speed relative to chord plane corresponding to the recited air angle of attack, flap angle settings corresponding to the recited position of a horizontal stabilizer, and monitoring weights and fuel reserves corresponding to the recited total fuel weight).
The combination of the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data based flight path optimization of Knapp fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the aircraft and powertrain model data based flight path optimization of Knapp in order to enable high-frequency operations at optimal efficiency while supporting safe operation of the powertrain, through appropriate fault isolation and recovery mechanisms (Knapp - ¶103).
Regarding claim 18, Ballin further discloses wherein the computer system is selected from at least one of a flight management computer, a flight management system, or an electronic flight bag (¶145 – TAP module is incorporated into a flight management system. The “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed).
Regarding claim 19, Ballin further discloses corporate owned passenger carrying aircraft corresponding to the recited commercial airplane (¶134).
While Ballin does not explicitly disclose what type of aircraft is being discussed, the figures and ¶134 disclose the use of passenger aircraft, but does not explicitly disclose the other aircraft types claimed.
However, Knapp further discloses wherein the aircraft is selected from a group that comprises: a commercial airplane, a cargo airplane, a rotorcraft, a tilt-rotor aircraft, a tilt wing aircraft, a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, an electrical vertical takeoff and landing vehicle, a personal air vehicle, and an unmanned aerial vehicle (¶84-89 – numerous different types of aircraft with different usages and benefits are disclosed)
The combination of the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the various types of aircraft using engine and maintenance history data based flight path optimization of Knapp fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the system for generating flight optimizing trajectories of Ballin with the various types of aircraft using engine and maintenance history data based flight path optimization of Knapp in order to enable high-frequency operations at optimal efficiency while supporting safe operation of the powertrain, through appropriate fault isolation and recovery mechanisms (Knapp - ¶103).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 2017/0323274) discloses a system for controlling aircraft operations and engine components including weighing different trade-offs between optimizing both component lifespans as well as flight specific preferences (¶102-103).
Bewlay et al. (US 2018/0155061) discloses a control system for an aircraft including monitoring engine parameter data and environmental conditions when planning route controls (¶27-29).
Skola (US 10,556,703) discloses a predictive aircraft performance system including utilizing a flight parameter database as well as certain ownership preferences to optimize flight controls (Abstract).
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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights