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 .
This is a non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 08 October 2025. Claims 1-19 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 October 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Foreign priority documents have been fully considered and Examiner acknowledges claim to foreign priority. Amendments to Claim 3 and 15 have been fully considered are persuasive and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections to claims 3 and 5 have been withdrawn. Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) rejection of claim 4 have been fully considered and is persuasive and rejection is withdrawn. Amendments and arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered are persuasive but are moot in view of new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection necessitated by amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Communication module in claims 12 and 14
Flight management centre in claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the communication module:
" The communication module is a SELCAL module or a DATALINK module", [¶ 31]
" In the invention, this channel C1 is preferably a UHF, VHF or HF channel. According to various embodiments, the module MC may be a SELCAL (Selective Calling) module, a DATALINK module or a VHF voice communication module (see later)." [¶ 46]
“Alternatively, according to a third embodiment, the first signal S1 is received by the communication module MC by way of a clear communication channel C1 that is common to a plurality of other aircraft in order to communicate with the terrestrial communication station SCT. For example, this channel is a VHF channel for voice communication. In this third embodiment, the predetermined code is then a predetermined specific voice message and the first signal S1 is a voice message comprising the predetermined code CP. Moreover, the module MC comprises a processor suitable for performing voice recognition of the messages exchanged on the channel C1 so that, in step B, the decoding of the first signal S1 is then performed by voice recognition of the predetermined code CP included in the first signal S1." [¶ 59]
Upon reviewing of the specification and interview summary filed on 30 June 2026, the corresponding structure for the flight management centre “is a well understood onboard computing system comprising one or more processors, memory, and control software”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s)1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al.(US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Serovy teaches, A method for remotely controlling a flight of an aircraft (A) following a first flight plan (the processor of the ground station may update a flight plan of the aircraft, must be following a first flight plan in order to update it, see at least, Col13, line 10-25, Serovy), the method comprising: implementing in the aircraft communication module (MC) connected to a flight management centre (CV), the flight management centre being implemented by the aircraft (Fig. 1 depicts comm system 111 connected to a flight management system (FMS) 115 implemented by the aircraft 110, see at least, Col 3 Line 51-55, Serovy), the communication module configured to allow an exchange of a signal transmitted from a terrestrial communication station (SCT) to the aircraft and an interpretation of said signal in a form of a voice message, and/or a luminous message and/or graphical data, by a pilot or pilots of the aircraft (communication system 111 is configured to send/receive signals/data/voice to and from the ground control station 130, see at least, Col 4 Line 4-7, Serovy), and said signal comprising at least a first signal, the method further comprising the following steps: A. determining, in the terrestrial communication station (SCT), an incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft, and thereafter transmitting from the terrestrial communication station (SCT) a first signal (S1) to the communication module (MC) (Fig. 3 depicts the computing device 133 of the ground station 130 is configured to in response to a determination that the pilot is experiencing a health problem may route data to the aircraft 110 which must include signals since the ground station is in communication with the aircraft, see at least, Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy) to engage a second flight plan (PV2) to be followed by the aircraft and provide an emergency diversion function to the aircraft, wherein the second flight plan (PV2) is activated remotely by transmission of the first signal (S1) by the terrestrial communication station (SCT) to the communication module (MC); and wherein the transmission of the first signal (S1) by the terrestrial communication station (SCT) is responsive to a determined incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft (the processor 301 of the ground control station sends an instruction or message to the aircraft 110 to engage the autopilot system in response to detecting a health problem of the pilot is an emergency diversion function to the aircraft, see at least, Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy).
Serovy does not explicitly teach B. using the communication module (MC), receiving the first signal (S1) that has been coded using a predetermined code (CP) and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), and the communication module (MC) then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module, and C. after the first signal (S1) has been decoded by the communication module (MC), sending, using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft, wherein, in the communication module, said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1).
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft teaches, B. using the communication module (MC), receiving the first signal (S1) that has been coded using a predetermined code (CP) and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), and the communication module (MC) then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module (when the aircraft is on the ground, the emergency navigational system is programmed with a code. When data is transmitted remotely to the aircraft, the emergency navigational system determines if the transmitted data includes a proper code that matches the stored code, it accepts the transmitted data, see at least ¶13, Turung), and C. after the first signal (S1) has been decoded by the communication module (MC), sending, using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft, wherein, in the communication module, said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) (after the signal is decoded by the emergency navigational system, the emergency navigational system can be caused take navigational control of the aircraft and the emergency navigational system which can be manually or automatically initiated from a remote location such has the ground authorities and flight controllers or , ¶7-12, 20, 54, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy’s method of sending a message from ground control to the aircraft to incorporate the teachings of Turung which teaches B. using the communication module (MC), receiving the first signal (S1) that has been coded using a predetermined code (CP) and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), and the communication module (MC) then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module, and C. after the first signal (S1) has been decoded by the communication module (MC), sending, using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft wherein, in the communication module, said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) since they are both related to emergency aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase the security of communications between the ground control and aircraft.
Regarding Claim 2, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1.
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft further teaches wherein the second flight plan comprises landing the aircraft at a different airport from a landing airport of the first flight plan (the emergency navigational system can be remotely given new instructions to cause the aircraft to be remotely navigated to other locations which is interpreted as another airport, see at least, ¶16, Turung)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung to further incorporate the teachings of Turung which teaches wherein the second flight plan comprises landing the aircraft at a different airport from a landing airport of the first flight plan since they are both related to emergency aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase would increase safety of flight.
Regarding Claim 4, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1.
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft teaches, wherein the flight management centre is configured to prevent a change or override of a flight parameter of the aircraft during step C by executing, in response to the command (CMD) received from the communication module, a control mode in which pilot-originated commands are inhibited or ignored (the emergency navigational system can be designed so that it cannot be caused to release control to a pilot and/or other authorized personnel unilaterally by the pilot and/or other authorized personnel¶10, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy’s method of sending a message from ground control to the aircraft to incorporate the teachings of Turung which teaches wherein the flight management centre is configured to prevent a change or override of a flight parameter of the aircraft during step C by executing, in response to the command (CMD) received from the communication module, a control mode in which pilot-originated commands are inhibited or ignored since they are both related to emergency aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase the security of communications between the ground control and aircraft.
Regarding Claim 5, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 4.
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft teaches,
comprising a subsequent step D of: determining, in the terrestrial communication station (SCT), a non-incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft (aircraft remains in a holding pattern until it is determined that the pilot can regain control of the aircraft to safely land the aircraft, see at least, ¶59, Turung), receiving, using the communication module (MC), a second signal (S2) that has been coded using the predetermined code and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), and the communication module (MC) then decoding the second signal using the predetermined code, which has previously been stored in the communication module, and (when the aircraft is on the ground, the emergency navigational system is programmed with a circuit board, chip or card that is predetermined code and uses the code to decode transmitted data to check if it matches stored code before accepting the transmitted data, see at least, ¶13, Turung) after having decoded the second signal (S2), sending, using the communication module, an additional command (CMD') to the flight management centre that involves providing the pilot or pilots with a capacity to change a flight parameter of the aircraft (the second code is transmitted to release emergency navigational control once the emergency situation is under reasonable control allowing pilots control to change a flight parameter of the aircraft, see at least, ¶7-12, 53, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung to further incorporate the teachings of Turung which teaches comprising a subsequent step D of: determining, in the terrestrial communication station (SCT), a non-incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft, receiving, using the communication module (MC), a second signal (S2) that has been coded using the predetermined code and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), and the communication module (MC) then decoding the second signal using the predetermined code, which has previously been stored in the communication module, and after having decoded the second signal (S2), sending, using the communication module, an additional command (CMD') to the flight management centre that involves providing the pilot or pilots with a capacity to change a flight parameter of the aircraft since they are both related to aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase safety, reliability and security of the overall system by reenabling pilot control when the terrestrial communication station has determined the pilot is no longer incapacitated.
Regarding Claim 10, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1 teaches wherein said determination of the incapacity is performed by the terrestrial communication station (ground control station 130 processor 301 is configured to receive data from various sources of the aircraft system 100 and determine that the pilot is experiencing a health problem, see at least, ¶Col 12 line 25 – Col 13 line 28, Serovy).
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft further teaches wherein said determination of the incapacity is performed on a basis of at least one of: a heading of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, a speed of the aircraft, an overflight of a prohibited area by the aircraft, a loss of communication between the terrestrial communication station and the aircraft, or an incapacity to establish a communication (emergency navigational system takes control of the aircraft in the event of a detected deviation in flight path, airspeed, orientation and/or altitude, see at least, ¶10, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Serovy in view of Turung method of pilot incapacitation determination to incorporate the teachings of Turing which teaches determination of the incapacity is performed on a basis of at least one piece of information chosen from the following list: a heading of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, a speed of the aircraft, an overflight of a prohibited area by the aircraft, a loss of communication between the terrestrial communication station and the aircraft, or an incapacity to establish a communication since they are both related to emergency aircraft controls and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase safety of flight due to detected incapacitation of the pilot.
Regarding Claim 11, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, The method according to The method according to claim 1, wherein said determination of the incapacity is performed by the terrestrial communication station on a basis of at least one piece of information (Inf) that is transmitted by the communication module of the aircraft; and wherein the at least one piece of information being representative of vital parameters of the pilot or pilots (see at least, ¶ Col 2, Row 35-67 and Col 3, Row 1-11 and Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy).
Regarding Claim 12, Serovy teaches, A communication module (MC) implemented onboard an aircraft (A), the communication module comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions, said communication module (MC) being connected to a flight management centre (CV) implemented by the aircraft (Fig. 1 depicts comm system 111 connected to a flight management system (FMS) 115 implemented by the aircraft 110 and a computing device 112 which includes at least one processor, memory and storage, see at least, Col 3 Line 51-55, Serovy), and the communication module configured to allow an exchange of a signal transmitted from a terrestrial communication station (SCT) to the aircraft and an interpretation of said signal in a form of a voice message, and/or a luminous message and/or graphical data, by a pilot or pilots of the aircraft (Fig. 3 depicts the computing device 133 of the ground station 130 is configured to in response to a determination that the pilot is experiencing a health problem may route data to the aircraft 110 which must include signals since the ground station is in communication with the aircraft, see at least, Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy), said signal comprising at least a first signal, and when the aircraft follows a first flight plan, the communication module being configured to: A. receive a first signal (S1) that has been coded using a predetermined code (CP) and transmitted by the terrestrial communication station (SCT), (Fig. 3 depicts the computing device 133 of the ground station 130 is configured to in response to a determination that the pilot is experiencing a health problem may route data to the aircraft 110 which must include signals since the ground station is in communication with the aircraft, see at least, Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy) and to engage a second flight plan (PV2) to be followed by the aircraft and provide an emergency diversion function to the aircraft, wherein the second flight plan (PV2) is activated remotely by transmission of the first signal (S1) by the terrestrial communication station (SCT) to the communication module (MC); and wherein the transmission of the first signal (S1) by the terrestrial communication station (SCT) is responsive to a determined incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft (Fig. 3 depicts the computing device 133 of the ground station 130 is configured to in response to a determination that the pilot is experiencing a health problem may route data to the aircraft 110 which must include signals since the ground station is in communication with the aircraft, see at least, Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy).
Serovy does not explicitly teach then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module, and B. send, after the first signal (S1) has been decoded, using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft.
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft teaches, then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module, and B. send, after the first signal (S1) has been decoded (when the aircraft is on the ground, the emergency navigational system is programmed with a code. When data is transmitted remotely to the aircraft, the emergency navigational system determines if the transmitted data includes a proper code that matches the stored code, it accepts the transmitted data, see at least ¶13, Turung), using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft, wherein, in the communication module, said sending of the command (CMD) is
automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) (after the signal is decoded by the emergency navigational system, the emergency navigational system can be caused take navigational control of the aircraft and the emergency navigational system which can be manually or automatically initiated from a remote location such has the ground authorities and flight controllers or , ¶7-12, 20, 54, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy’s method of sending a message from ground control to the aircraft to incorporate the teachings of Turung which teaches then decoding the first signal using the predetermined code, wherein the predetermined code has previously been stored in the communication module, and B. send, after the first signal (S1) has been decoded, using the communication module, a command (CMD) to the flight management centre of the aircraft, wherein, in the communication module, said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) since they are both related to emergency aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase the security of communications between the ground control and aircraft.
Regarding Claim 13, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the communication module according to claim 12 teach wherein the communication module is a SELCAL module or a DATALINK module (communication system 100 is configured for sending data, see at least, ¶Col 4 Line 4 - 43, Serovy).
Regarding Claim 14, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, The communication module according to The communication module according to claim 1, wherein the communication module (MC) is configured for transmitting, to the terrestrial communication station (SCT), at least one piece of information (Inf) that is representative of an incapacity of the pilot or pilots of the aircraft and wherein the at least one piece of information being representative of vital parameters of the pilot or pilots (see at least, ¶ Col 2, Row 35-67 and Col 3, Row 1-11 and Col 12 Line 25 – Col 13 Line 28, Serovy).
Regarding Claim 15, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the communication module according to claim 12,
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft further teaches wherein, the communication module is configurable to not implement step B after step A during flight, the communication module being configured such that a configuration is operable only before the aircraft takes off (The pilot/authorized personnel can partially or fully remove the emergency navigational system from the aircraft when the aircraft is on the ground (which is before the aircraft takes off), the emergency navigational system is configured with a code, chip or card, see at least, ¶7, 13, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Serovy in view of Turung to incorporate the teachings of Turing which teaches wherein, the communication module is configurable to not implement step B after step A during flight, the communication module being configured such that a configuration is operable only before the aircraft takes off since they are both related to emergency aircraft controls and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase safety of flight.
Regarding Claim 16 and 18, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the communication module according to claim 1 (re- claim 16) and the communication module according to claim 12 (re-claim 18).
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft further teaches wherein the second flight plan (PV2) has been pre-programmed in the flight management centre prior to receipt of the first signal (S1) (the emergency navigational system is preprogramed prior to flight with data pertaining to proper flight path and alternative flight plans, see at least, ¶12, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Serovy in view of Turung to incorporate the teachings of Turing which teaches wherein the second flight plan (PV2) has been pre-programmed in the flight management centre prior to receipt of the first signal (S1) since they are both related to emergency aircraft controls and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase safety of flight.
Regarding Claim 17 and 19, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1 (re-claim 17) and the communication module according to claim 12 (re-claim 19),
Turung, directed to emergency navigational systems for aircraft further teaches wherein said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) without requiring further determination of aircraft flight parameters by the aircraft (the emergency navigational system activates immediately after the emergency navigational system determines that an emergency situation exists and can automatically cause the aircraft to land at destination B’ or B, see at least, ¶15, 59, Turung).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified Serovy in view of Turung to incorporate the teachings of Turing which teaches wherein said sending of the command (CMD) is automatically generated upon decoding of the first signal (S1) without requiring further determination of aircraft flight parameters by the aircraft since they are both related to emergency aircraft controls and incorporation of the teachings of Turung would increase safety of flight.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al. (US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 and further in view of Gershzohn; Gary R. (US 8565944 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 2, wherein localization data provided by a localization sensor connected to the flight management centre and wherein the localization sensor comprises a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver, a GPS receiver, a VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range) sensor, and/or a DME (Distance Measuring Element) sensor. (GPS device 113 receives location data from GP\S Satellites 140, see at least, ¶Col 4 Line 43- Col 5 Line 8, Serovy).
Serovy in view of Turung does not explicitly teach wherein the different airport comprises a second airport; wherein step C further includes a determination of the second airport on a basis of localization data provided by a localization sensor connected to the flight management centre and/or on a basis of data comprising airport selection criteria and appropriate mode of conduct of the aircraft with regard to selection of the second airport.
Gershzohn, directed to aircraft flight planning teaches, wherein the different airport comprises a second airport; wherein step C further includes a determination of the second airport on a basis of localization data provided by a localization sensor connected to the flight management centre and/or on a basis of data comprising airport selection criteria and appropriate mode of conduct of the aircraft with regard to selection of the second airport (see at least, ¶19-20, Gershzohn).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung to incorporate the teachings of Gershzohn which teaches wherein the different airport comprises a second airport; wherein step C further includes a determination of the second airport on a basis of localization data provided by a localization sensor connected to the flight management centre and/or on a basis of data comprising airport selection criteria and appropriate mode of conduct of the aircraft with regard to selection of the second airport since they are both related to aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Ref2 would increase safety, reliability and security of the overall system by providing alternate airport landing criteria based on the current status of the weather and opening status of the possible alternate airports allowing the pilot/remote pilot/emergency landing system to select an airport that is safe for the aircraft to land based on real-time airport conditions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al. (US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 and further in view of Matos, Jeffrey A. (US 20030130770 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, The method according to claim 1 wherein the first signal is received by the communication module (MC) by way of a clear communication channel (C1) that is common to a plurality of other aircraft in order to communicate with the terrestrial communication station (SCT) (ATC, ADS-B and AGARS channels are known in the art to be common channels used by many aircraft, see at least, ¶Col 3, Line 3-11, Serovy).
Serovy in view of Turung does not explicitly teach wherein the first signal comprises the voice message that recites the predetermined code, and wherein the decoding of the first signal comprises the communication module (MC) performing voice recognition of the predetermined code included in the voice message in the first signal.
Matos, directed to assuming and maintaining secure remote control of and aircraft teaches, wherein the first signal comprises the voice message that recites the predetermined code (speaking certain words such as “help” or by voice identification, see at least, ¶12-13, Matos), and wherein the decoding of the first signal comprises the communication module (MC) performing voice recognition of the predetermined code included in the voice message in the first signal (voice recognition software distinguish appropriate words or appropriate speaker of the words, see at least, ¶282, 373, Matos).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung communication signal code to incorporate the teachings of Matos which teaches wherein the first signal comprises the voice message that recites the predetermined code, and wherein the decoding of the first signal comprises the communication module (MC) performing voice recognition of the predetermined code included in the voice message in the first signal since they are both related to aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Matos would increase safety, reliability and security of the overall system to authenticate an authorized speaker or user of a voice message on a shared channel among other aircraft and allow the ground control station to authenticate the identity of the speaker of the voice message.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al. (US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 and further in view of Nikolsky, Mark E. (US 20030068044 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1.
Serovy in view of Turung does not explicitly teach wherein the first signal is received by the communication module (MC) by way of an exclusive communication channel between the aircraft and the terrestrial communication station, the exclusive communication channel being protected by the predetermined code.
Nikolsky, directed to a pilot authentication and alert system teaches, wherein the first signal is received by the communication module (MC) by way of an exclusive communication channel between the aircraft and the terrestrial communication station, the exclusive communication channel being protected by the predetermined code (the communications subsystem 55 allocates and assigns exclusive radio-frequency channels and manages decryption and encryption subsystem, see at least, ¶31, Nikolsky).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung communication system to incorporate the teachings of Nikolsky which teaches wherein the first signal is received by the communication module (MC) by way of an exclusive communication channel between the aircraft and the terrestrial communication station, the exclusive communication channel being protected by the predetermined code since they are both related to aircraft safety and incorporation of the teachings of Nikolsky would increase safety and security of aircraft operations.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al. (US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 and further in view of Chmelarova; Katerina et al. (US 20180068569 A1) and Raynaud; Sylvain et al. (US 20220028285 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1.
Serovy in view of Turung does not explicitly teach comprising a step BC implemented after step B and before step C, wherein the step BC comprises preparing the second flight plan and then displaying the second flight plan on a screen of the aircraft visible to the pilot or pilots, and wherein step C implemented after said step BC only after a predetermined time.
Chmelarova, directed to presenting potential diversion airports for an aircraft teaches, comprising a step BC implemented after step B and before step C, wherein the step BC comprises preparing the second flight plan and then displaying the second flight plan on a screen of the aircraft visible to the pilot or pilots (see at least, ¶17, Chmelarova).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention of Serovy in view of Turung to incorporate the teachings of Chmelarova which teaches comprising a step BC implemented after step B and before step C, wherein the step BC comprises preparing the second flight plan and then displaying the second flight plan on a screen of the aircraft visible to the pilot or pilots, since they are all related to aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Chmelarova would increase safety, reliability and security of the overall system by warning the pilot of changes to the flight plan.
Raynaud, directed to flight management architecture teaches, and wherein step C implemented after said step BC only after a predetermined time (see at least, ¶18, Raynaud).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have further modified the invention of Serovy in view of Turung and Chmelarova to incorporate the teachings of Raynaud which teaches and wherein step C being implemented after step BC only after a predetermined time, since they are all related to aircraft control and incorporation of the teachings of Raynaud would increase safety, reliability and security of the overall system by giving the pilot a chance to react and cancel the change in flight plan before the rerouting is performed.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serovy; Rick M. et al. (US 9826941 B1) in view of Turung (US 20050216138 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 10-19 and further in view of WALTER; Eric et al. (US 20220063795 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Serovy in view of Turung teaches, the method according to claim 1, Serovy in view of Turung does not explicitly teach wherein the aircraft comprises a single pilot.
Walter, directed to System for configuring an aircraft in one-pilot mode or in two-pilot mode teaches, wherein the aircraft comprises a single pilot (see at least, ¶15 Walter).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Serovy in view of Turung’s aircraft incorporate the teachings of Walter which teaches wherein the aircraft comprises a single pilot since they are both related to aircraft controls and incorporation of the teachings of Walter would benefit from having a high degree of flexibility in use of the aircraft (¶ 13, Walter).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights