DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 01/27/2026. Claims 14-15 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-13, 16-18 and 20-21 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objections:
Applicant has argued that the claim objections are overcome by the filed amendment reverting the claims back to their original numbering. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has argued that the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn this rejection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant has argued that Dacre discloses evaluating candidate rejoin trajectories using aircraft and operational constraints, but “does not disclose using an aircraft energy assessment as an operational condition that governs which intercept is automatically flown.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Dacre ¶ 99 discloses that “an energy reduction computation can be computed from the aeroplane position to the energy required for the stabilization, then, depending on the final approach slope, from the stabilization height to the runway threshold. This distance, called RDTL, can be compared to the distance from the aeroplane to the runway threshold along the rejoining trajectory. The difference provides a stabilization margin which can be displayed to the pilot.” Also, Dacre ¶¶ 106-111 disclose “to determine a required distance to the point at which the constraint to be satisfied is located: … for a stabilization constraint, it is the excess of energy at the stabilization point reduced to the weight of the aircraft, divided by the specific residual energy or ‘Specific Excess Power’ and multiplied by the ground speed… The result of this function is a trajectory length desired to a given point. The automatic adjustment of the trajectory is possible according to the method only if the point on which the constraint bears is located after the first of the segments of the section to be rejoined, and if the rejoining occurs on a segment situated at the latest at this point.” This automatic adjustment of the trajectory based on the stabilization constraint related to the energy teaches the recited step of “automatically selecting, by the at least one processor, an intercept point that satisfies an aircraft energy state condition with the flight plan intercept advisory function … when aircraft parameters are within a preselected range” as claimed.
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
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 1-12, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacre-Wright et al. (US 2018/0276999 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dacre, in view of Parthasarathy (US 2015/0260525 A1), and further in view of De Villele et al. (US 20200273349 A1), hereinafter referred to as Villele.
Regarding claim 1:
Dacre discloses the following limitations:
“A method for setting an aircraft heading for an intercept of a flight plan, comprising: activating, by at least one processor, a flight plan intercept advisory function on a flight management system (FMS) for an aircraft when the aircraft deviates from an active flight plan.” (Dacre Abstract and ¶¶ 7-9 disclose a “method being implemented in a flight management system of the aircraft” in response to a “lateral deviation” or a “vertical deviation” from a flight plan. Also, Dacre ¶ 40: “The flight management system is handled by one or more embedded electronic computers.”)
“where the flight plan intercept advisory function, identifies at least one intercept point of the active flight plan that is based on an aircraft heading that is selected by a pilot of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 69-70 and FIG. 4 reproduced below: “FIG. 4 represents a rejoining trajectory according to the invention implementing a heading setpoint holding point PMC. … Initially, the aircraft follows the trajectory TPMC to the setpoint point PMC. Next, from this point, it follows the capture trajectory TC to regain the reference trajectory at a point situated, in FIG. 4, between the waypoints W2 and W3. … the adjustment of the setpoint holding point can be done manually. When a setpoint holding point is defined, the pilot can increase or reduce the distance defining the position of this setpoint holding point along the trajectory shown by the heading setpoint, so as to move it along the heading setpoint trajectory.” The “point situated… between the waypoints W2 and W3” reads on the “at least one intercept point” as claimed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
279
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“and calculates predicted compliance with flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft at each intercept point.” (Dacre ¶ 8: “This proposal of a rejoining trajectory is a necessary prerequisite for maintaining a satisfactory and coherent rejoining trajectory hypothesis and thus making it possible to inform the pilot on the most reliable time and fuel predictions to the destination, on following his or her descent profile, keeping to the next constraints or the stabilization before landing.” Additionally, Dacre ¶ 78 discloses the determination of whether a rejoining trajectory satisfies a distance constraint, altitude constraint, and minimum thrust constraint.)
“displaying the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft at each intercept point to the pilot of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 40 and 95: “The rejoining trajectory is displayed on the navigation screen to allow the pilot to assess the impact of the chosen setpoint holding point. Similarly, the predictions are computed along this trajectory, and supplied to the pilot,” where “A prediction should be understood to be the value of a piloting or navigation parameter concerning the present or the future of the flight. For example, a prediction concerning the future of the flight is the flight time remaining until the landing of the aircraft or the maximum flight distance given fuel reserves.”)
“automatically selecting, by at least one processor, an intercept point that satisfies an aircraft energy state condition with the flight plan intercept advisory function … when aircraft parameters are within a preselected range.” (Dacre ¶ 99: “Finally, an energy reduction computation can be computed from the aeroplane position to the energy required for the stabilization, then, depending on the final approach slope, from the stabilization height to the runway threshold. This distance, called RDTL, can be compared to the distance from the aeroplane to the runway threshold along the rejoining trajectory. The difference provides a stabilization margin which can be displayed to the pilot.” Additionally, Dacre ¶¶ 106-111: “it is possible to determine a required distance to the point at which the constraint to be satisfied is located: … for a stabilization constraint, it is the excess of energy at the stabilization point reduced to the weight of the aircraft, divided by the specific residual energy or ‘Specific Excess Power’ and multiplied by the ground speed… The result of this function is a trajectory length desired to a given point. The automatic adjustment of the trajectory is possible according to the method only if the point on which the constraint bears is located after the first of the segments of the section to be rejoined, and if the rejoining occurs on a segment situated at the latest at this point.”)
Dacre does not explicitly disclose selecting the intercept point “using a Place-Bearing-Distance (PBD) principle.” However, Parthasarathy does teach this limitation. (Parthasarathy ¶ 48 and FIG. 4 reproduced below: “FIG. 4 shows an exemplary ’Cross’ dialog box 400 for creating an Along Track Waypoint (ATW) or a Place Bearing Distance (PBD) waypoint.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
546
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Dacre by allowing the intercept point to be recommended using PBD functionality as taught by Parthasarathy, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using PBD functionality would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the flight plan management method of Parthasarathy or whether integrated into the trajectory rejoining method of Dacre.
The combination of Dacre and Parthasarathy does not specifically teach “automatically activating, by at least one processor, a managed flight mode and automatically controlling, by at least one processor, the flight of the aircraft in the managed flight mode to effect convergence on the automatically selected intercept point, comprising automatically adjusting a pitch and throttle of the aircraft.” However, Villele does teach this limitation. (Villele ¶ 6 teaches to “begin a managed mode; and while in managed mode: identify a rejoining leg of the planned flight path at which to rejoin the planned flight path; identify a location on the rejoining leg at which to rejoin; select a recapture path strategy from (i) lateral, (ii) vertical, and (iii) mixed lateral and vertical; compute a recapture path to the location on the rejoining leg using the selected recapture path strategy, the computed recapture path including speed targets and configuration requirements at dedicated points along the recapture path; predict aircraft state data along the recapture path; and generate guidance controls for the aircraft along the recapture path.” The use of a “mixed lateral and vertical” recapture path strategy teaches to automatically adjust a pitch and throttle of the aircraft as claimed; also, Villele ¶ 48 discloses that “the recapture path strategy may also be selected as a function of the aircraft 100 state, such as current altitude, speed, heading, engine performance, aircraft gross weight (GW), and aircraft fuel level or fuel on board (FOB). In various embodiments, the recapture path strategy may also be selected based on potential aircraft roll, pitch, and yaw, as well as related comfort specifications.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Dacre and Parthasarathy by activating a managed flight mode for automatically rejoining the planned flight path as taught by Villele with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Villele ¶¶ 20-26 teach that this can provide benefits such as the generation of a rejoining path with stable approach criteria and automatic generation and execution of the rejoining path without a need for human input. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this would ease the rejoining process for the pilot and avoid the effects of potential human errors.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the intercept point is along a leg segment of the active flight plan.” (Dacre FIG. 4 illustrates the rejoining point between W2 and W3 being located along a leg of the active flight plan.)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft is categorized as stable.” (Dacre ¶¶ 99-100 disclose that “an energy reduction computation can be computed from the aeroplane position to the energy required for the stabilization, then, depending on the final approach slope, from the stabilization height to the runway threshold. This distance, called RDTL, can be compared to the distance from the aeroplane to the runway threshold along the rejoining trajectory. The difference provides a stabilization margin which can be displayed to the pilot. All these indications allow the pilot to ensure his or her flight is followed accurately, and in particular the descent thereof, taking into account the lateral rejoining trajectory.”)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft is categorized as unstable.” (Dacre ¶¶ 99-100 disclose that “an energy reduction computation can be computed from the aeroplane position to the energy required for the stabilization, then, depending on the final approach slope, from the stabilization height to the runway threshold. This distance, called RDTL, can be compared to the distance from the aeroplane to the runway threshold along the rejoining trajectory. The difference provides a stabilization margin which can be displayed to the pilot. All these indications allow the pilot to ensure his or her flight is followed accurately, and in particular the descent thereof, taking into account the lateral rejoining trajectory.” The case in which the stabilization margin is not met reads on the predicted compliance being “unstable” as claimed.)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises an energy state of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 106-108: “it is possible to determine a required distance to the point at which the constraint to be satisfied is located: … for a stabilization constraint, it is the excess of energy at the stabilization point reduced to the weight of the aircraft, divided by the specific residual energy or ‘Specific Excess Power’ and multiplied by the ground speed.”)
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises speed of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 96-97: “The evolution of the parameters of the aircraft along the flight can then be computed along this rejoining trajectory, then along the flight plan to the destination, according to the state of the art of predictions computed by a flight manager. In particular, a descent profile can be computed from the destination, and by working back along the trajectory to the position of the aircraft, by taking into account the various speed, altitude or time constraints along the trajectory.”)
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises altitude of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 96-97: “The evolution of the parameters of the aircraft along the flight can then be computed along this rejoining trajectory, then along the flight plan to the destination, according to the state of the art of predictions computed by a flight manager. In particular, a descent profile can be computed from the destination, and by working back along the trajectory to the position of the aircraft, by taking into account the various speed, altitude or time constraints along the trajectory.” Also, Dacre ¶¶ 106-107: “it is possible to determine a required distance to the point at which the constraint to be satisfied is located: for an altitude constraint, it is the altitude error at the level of the constraint, divided by the slope that can be flown by the aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises fuel remaining for the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶¶ 106-108: “it is possible to determine a required distance to the point at which the constraint to be satisfied is located: … for a stabilization constraint, it is the excess of energy at the stabilization point reduced to the weight of the aircraft, divided by the specific residual energy or ‘Specific Excess Power’ and multiplied by the ground speed.”)
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises distance until a destination of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶ 78: “In some cases, the rejoining trajectory from the current heading setpoint does not offer a satisfactory distance to a given constraint or to the destination. It may be an insufficient distance to allow the conditions of stabilization of the aircraft before landing. In this case, the margin is too small between the so-called ‘RDTL’ distance, RDTL being the acronym for ‘Required Distance To Land’, and the distance according to the rejoining trajectory to the runway.”)
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre also teaches “where the predicted compliance of flight performance and operational parameters of the aircraft comprises any operational constraints of the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶ 78: “In some cases, the rejoining trajectory from the current heading setpoint does not offer a satisfactory distance to a given constraint or to the destination. It may be an insufficient distance to allow the conditions of stabilization of the aircraft before landing. In this case, the margin is too small between the so-called ‘RDTL’ distance, RDTL being the acronym for ‘Required Distance To Land’, and the distance according to the rejoining trajectory to the runway. The distance can also be too short for the next altitude constraint to be able to be kept with a descent slope at minimum thrust.”)
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre additionally teaches “where the display indicates the intercept point that is nearest to the aircraft.” (Dacre ¶ 15 discloses that it is known in the art to choose “the shortest rejoining trajectory,” which is equivalent to a rejoining trajectory with an intercept point that is nearest to the aircraft as claimed.)
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Villele also teaches “where the display indicates the intercept point that is nearest to an active runway of a destination of the aircraft.” (Villele ¶ 61: “the method 1000 continually displays the active/current flight path and the planned flight path.” Also, Villele ¶ 54: “the control module 104 (i.e., the programmed processor 150) selects a recapture path strategy from among (i) lateral, (ii) vertical, and (iii) mixed lateral and vertical. In this use case, the control module 104 further selects a recapture path strategy to ensure a stable approach and to avoid undue level flight during the approach and descent. As used herein, avoiding undue level flight means minimizing a distance to a destination while maintaining stability.” Selecting a recapture path that minimizes a distance to the destination teaches to use the intercept point that is nearest to the destination runway as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Dacre and Parthasarathy by choosing an intercept point that minimizes a distance to a destination as taught by Bitar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Villele ¶ 54 teaches that this can help to provide a stable approach and landing. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the shortest path to the destination would generally lead to benefits such as the quickest flight time and the lowest possible fuel consumption.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Dacre further teaches “where the display automatically indicates a deemed most favorable intercept point.” (Dacre ¶ 10: “When the rejoining is proposed by a capture of the flight plan by the current guidance setpoint, it is because this setpoint constitutes the best rejoining hypothesis from the current position.” Additionally, Dacre ¶ 41: “Such various information deriving from the management of the flight plan is transmitted to the user, essentially by means of display devices or displays 17 which display the various piloting and navigation information.”)
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” and Parthasarathy additionally teaches “where the display comprises a graphical display in two dimensions (2D).” (Parthasarathy ¶ 46 and FIG. 2 reproduced below: “FIG. 2 is an exemplary display 200 of a graphical flight plan image that may be shown on display device 102 in display system 100 (FIG. 1).”)
PNG
media_image3.png
560
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Dacre and Villele by using a two-dimensional graphical display as taught by Parthasarathy, because this amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using a two-dimensional graphical display would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the flight plan management method of Parthasarathy or whether integrated into the trajectory rejoining method disclosed by the combination of Dacre and Villele. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing a two-dimensional view of the flight plan could be useful for providing a simplified view in situations where only two flight dimensions are relevant, like when the aircraft is maintaining altitude but adjusting its lateral or longitudinal movement.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 2,” and Dacre further teaches “where the leg segment is between two waypoints along the active flight plan.” (Dacre FIG. 4 illustrates that the rejoining point is located on a leg of the active flight plan that is defined between waypoints W2 and W3.)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacre in view of Parthasarathy and Villele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bitar et al. (US 2008/0294335 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bitar.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “where the display indicates the intercept point that is nearest to a selected waypoint along the flight plan.” However, Bitar does teach this limitation. (Bitar ¶ 34: “The rejoining path proposed by the flight management computer 10 is the shortest one in order to arrive at the destination point of the published procedure taking account of the flight constraints associated with the waypoints of the published navigation procedure, a waypoint with an obligation to pass through it not being ignored, and a limit being fixed to the forces undergone by the structure of the aircraft and to the discomfort of the passengers caused by the maneuvers necessary for the rejoining maneuver.” Additionally, Bitar ¶ 31: “the waypoints belonging to the route which remains to be flown are displayed, in graphical form, with the legs which join them, on the ND navigation screen 15 and, in alphanumeric table form, with their individual flight constraints, on a display screen of the MCD console 16.” Using the shortest rejoining path that passes through an obligated waypoint teaches to use the intercept point that is nearest to a selected waypoint as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele by selecting the shortest rejoining path that passes through an obligated waypoint as is taught by Bitar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because this would allow for regulatory requirements to be followed while otherwise following the shortest possible path to the destination; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that following the shortest possible path would generally lead to benefits such as the quickest flight time and the lowest possible fuel consumption.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dacre in view of Parthasarathy and Villele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sacle et al. (US 2010/0324812 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sacle.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele teaches “The method of Claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “where the display comprises a graphical display in three dimensions (3D).” However, Sacle does teach this limitation. (Sacle ¶¶ 51-58 discloses that “A system of FMS type 100 has a man-machine interface 120 comprising for example a keyboard and a display screen, or quite simply a tactile display screen, as well as at least the following functions, described in the aforementioned ARINC 702 standard: … Guidance (GUID) 107, for guiding in the lateral and vertical planes the aircraft on its three-dimensional trajectory, while optimizing its speed.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele by displaying the trajectory guidance in three dimensions as taught by Sacle, because this modification is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Using the three-dimensional display guidance would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the flight plan rejoining method of Sacle or whether integrated into the trajectory rejoining method disclosed by the combination of Dacre, Parthasarathy, and Villele. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that displaying the three-dimensional view of the trajectory could help with simultaneously conveying information about altitude changes and lateral and longitudinal movements so that the pilot does not have to switch back and forth between certain views or screens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662