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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/29/2025, in which claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are amended, claims 2, 6, 9, 13, 16, and 17 are cancelled, and claim 21-26 are new. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-17, and 19-26 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20, under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been maintained.
The applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19, under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 USC §101, the Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to a specific aircraft flight management system/method with specialized onboard components working together to solve aviation-specific technical problems. Unlike abstract concepts such as mathematical formulas, fundamental economic practices, or mental processes, these claims recite a concrete technological system comprising a flight management system, communications system, display device, and controller that work together to manage flight plans during aircraft operation.
The claimed invention is not analogous to abstract ideas found objectionable in cases like Alice Corp. (intermediated settlement), Bilski (risk hedging), or Gottschalk v. Benson (mathematical algorithms). Instead, it recites specific technological components and their interactions within the specialized field of aircraft avionics.
With respect to claim 1, the functionality of the invention is performed by “a controller” coupled to the various aircraft systems. The controller uses “one or more processors” to carry out the invention.
The specification defines the processors as: “…any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the controller 12, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), any combination thereof, or generally any device for executing instructions.” This definition of the processor is a generic computing device, e.g., generally any device for executing instructions. Therefore, even if the controller can interface with specific flight management systems, a system the instant application does not claim, the controller performing the functions of the invention as well as interfacing with the flight management systems is a generic processor. Thus, the above language is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. (See MPEP 2106.05(I)) Therefore, the above claim language does not integrated the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Therefore, the Examiner disagrees with the above arguments and does not find them persuasive.
Applicant further agues:
Step 2A, prong 1, relates to whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
In the Office Action, the Examiner stated that the claims recite an abstract idea that can be performed in the human mind.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims integrate any abstract concept into the practical application of aircraft flight management by:
Solving a technology-specific problem: The system addresses the aviation- specific technical challenge of safely evaluating and implementing flight plan changes during flight operations without disrupting active navigation systems.
Operating within a specialized technological environment: All claimed elements are onboard aircraft systems operating in the demanding aviation environment with safety-critical requirements.
Providing technological improvement: The "intermediate, inactive state"
represents a technological improvement that allows computational analysis of a proposed flight plan without affecting active flight-critical systems which addresses the technical problem of maintaining flight safety while enabling dynamic flight plan optimization.
Integrating with aircraft-specific systems: The claims require integration with flight management systems, aircraft communications, and involve aircraft-specific calculations (fuel consumption, travel time) that are tied to the physical operation of the aircraft.
Real-time processing of aviation data: The systems recited in the claims process flight mission data during actual flight operations, requiring real-time integration with aircraft position and operational parameters.
These claims are analogous to claims in cases like Enfish (specific improvement to computer technology) and Visual Memory (technological improvement in cache design), where claims were found patent-eligible due to their integration into specific technological applications.
The above argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to flight operations (i.e., These improvements allow flight crews to review impacts of the recommended updates in an intermediate, inactive state prior to changing the active flight plan, e.g., see ¶ [0047] of the originally filed Specification) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and Examples 37-42 of the 2019 PEG.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues:
Step 2A, prong 2, relates to whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims include several additional elements that constitute technological improvements:
Intermediate inactive flight plan architecture: The maintenance of flight plans in an "intermediate, inactive state" represents an improvement in flight management computer architecture that enables safe evaluation without affecting active systems.
Dual-state flight plan management: The system's ability to maintain both active and inactive flight plans simultaneously with different operational states represents an advancement in flight management system technology.
Integrated onboard system communication: The automatic transmission of activation data to multiple aircraft systems (flight management system and others) represents an improvement in aircraft system integration and automation.
Real-time impact calculation with aviation parameters: The system's ability to calculate estimated travel time and fuel consumption based on recommended updates represents an improvement in flight planning assessment capabilities.
Safety-enhanced flight plan modification: The prevention of disruption to active flight operations while enabling assessment represents a technological solution to the aviation industry problem of safely implementing flight plan changes.
Similarly to the previous arguments, these represent improvements to the abstract idea. Therefore, the analysis above applies here as well and thus the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Step 2B relates to whether the claim recites elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite significantly more than any
abstract concept through:
Specific technological implementation: The claims require specific onboard
aircraft systems working together in a coordinated manner, not merely generic computer implementation.
Aviation-specific technical processing: The calculations of travel time and fuel
consumption are not routine data processing but specialized aviation computations
requiring aircraft performance parameters.
Safety-critical system architecture: The intermediate inactive state and controlled
activation process address the technical challenge of maintaining flight safety while
enabling dynamic updates which is a solution specific to safety-critical systems.
Physical system integration: The claims require integration with physical aircraft
systems and real-time processing of operational data during flight.
Industry-specific technological improvement: The invention provides a concrete
technological solution to the aviation industry's need for safe, efficient flight plan
management.
These additional elements are not merely "apply it on a computer" or "do it faster"
but represent meaningful technological improvements to aircraft flight management
systems. This distinguishes the claim from cases like Alice Corp. and supports patent
eligibility under Step 2B.
These arguments are substantially similar to the previous arguments and are unpersuasive for the same reasons as presented above. The improvements shown are directed towards an improvement to the abstract idea and not improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The fact that these functions may be performed by “any device for executing instructions” shows that the elements are merely “apply it on a computer”.
Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
For the above reasons the Examiner is maintaining the rejections under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-17, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a system for an aircraft. Claim 8 is directed towards a method for in-flight management of an active flight plan. Claim 15 is directed towards an aircraft.
Step 2A, Prong 1
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites:
“…generate an inactive flight plan that includes a copy of the active flight plan modified based on the recommended updates…
…maintain the inactive flight plan in an intermediate, inactive state to enable assessment and review of the inactive flight plan without implementing the recommended updates into the active flight plan…
…access the inactive flight plan to determine a potential impact of the recommended updates on the active flight plan…
…in response to acceptance of the recommended updates, generate activation data configured to either modify the active flight plan based on the recommended updates or replace the active flight plan with the inactive flight plan…”
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites substantially similar limitations.
These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it' ' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a processor” at a high level. The specification identifies the processor generically as a general processor, i.e., any custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the controller 12, a semiconductor-based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set), any combination thereof, or generally any device for executing instructions – See specification at ¶ [0025]. The processor(s) is merely a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 15 further recite a flight management system, a communications system, a display device, and a controller. Claim 15 further recites a database. These combinations of elements also merely describe a generic computer that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These steps are not meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. The processor, flight management system, communications system, display device, controller, and database are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a processor flight management system, communications system, display device, controller, and database) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 further recites:
“…receive the flight mission data from the external sources via the communications system, wherein the flight mission data includes recommended updates to the active flight plan… render a graphical image on the display device that presents a contextual preview of the recommended updates including the estimated travel time to the destination and the estimated fuel on board upon arrival at the destination; and the potential impact of the recommended updates…and transmit the activation data to other systems of the aircraft including the flight management system.” These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activities, i.e., general data gathering and general displaying of data. These steps fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations and therefore fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception for the same reasons.
Step 2B
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3, 10, and 17, recite: “…render a popup window that includes a message configured to direct an operator’s attention to the potential impact of the recommended updates.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., displaying of data. Thus, the claims do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4, 11, and 18, recite: “…wherein the external sources include an airline operation controller, electronic flight bag, or cockpit mission manager.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5, 12, and 19, recite “…provide for a user to accept or reject the recommended updates, wherein the active flight plan is modified or replaced based on the recommended updates in response to the user accepting the recommended updates and the active flight plan remains the same in response to the user rejecting the recommended updates wherein the graphical user interface allows for a user to request expected messages that are predicted to be displayed to the user in the event that the recommended updates are implemented into the active flight plan, wherein the expected messages include one or more flight management advisory messages” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., displaying of data. Thus, the claims do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 14 and 19, recite additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, e.g., “generating… a warning in response to the potential impact of the recommended updates posing a risk to the aircraft.” In the instant application the claims recite “the processor”. However, as in their independent claims the processor is disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, “the processor” is no more than a generic computing element that is performing a generic computing activity. Thus, the claims do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 21, 23, and 25 recite: “wherein the contextual preview includes a minimum fuel on board parameter and an extra fuel estimate.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 recite: “wherein the controller is configured to…provide validation of the recommended updates prior to insertion into the active flight plan.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., mere data gathering. Thus, the claims do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, III et al. (US 2005/0203675 A1, “Griffin”) in view of Gowda (US 2017/0124734 A1, “Gowda”) and in further view of Fournier et al. (US 2017/0183105 A1, “Fournier”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Griffin discloses methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions and teaches:
An aircraft comprising: (FIG. 2 is a schematic illustration of an aircraft 102 having a system 100 configured to handle information received from off-board the aircraft in accordance with an embodiment of the invention – See at least ¶ [0021])
a flight management system, on board the aircraft configured for in-flight management of the active flight plan during operation of the aircraft and a position of the aircraft; (The flight guidance computer 106 can include a flight management computer, autoflight computer, autopilot, and/or autothrottle and can be linked to one or more aircraft control systems 101, shown in FIG. 2 as a lateral motion or roll control system 101b, and an air speed or engine control system/autothrottle 101c to control the aircraft direction, altitude and speed – See at least ¶ [0032]; as shown in Fig. 5, the system determines where the aircraft is located, e.g., altitude 13600)
a communications system, on board the aircraft, configured to receive flight mission data from external sources separate from the aircraft; (In one aspect of this embodiment, the system 100 includes a receiver 161 (e.g., an air traffic control (ATC) data receiver) that automatically receives electronic instructions transmitted to the aircraft 102 from a transmitter 160 (e.g., an ATC transmitter) – See at least ¶ [0021])
a display device, onboard the aircraft, configured to display the flight mission data of the active flight plan; (FIG. 4 illustrates a flight deck 180 having displays and controls associated with an embodiment of the system 100 described above. FIGS. 5-10 are detailed illustrations of portions of the displays and controls, illustrating specific examples of systems and methods for implementing instructions without requiring the operator to regenerate the instructions – See at least ¶ [0026]; Examiner notes that the display includes mission data of the active flight plan – See at least Fig. 5-10)
a controller onboard the aircraft and operatively coupled with the flight management system, the communications system, and the display device, the controller configured to, by on or more processors: (The flight guidance computer 106 can include a flight management computer, autoflight computer, autopilot, and/or autothrottle and can be linked to one or more aircraft control systems 101, shown in FIG. 2 as a lateral motion or roll control system 101b, and an air speed or engine control system/autothrottle 101c to control the aircraft direction, altitude and speed. The flight guidance computer 106 directs the operation of the control systems 101 (based on inputs from the receiver 161 and the operator) either automatically or by providing guidance cues to the operator who then manually controls the aircraft 102. Accordingly, the flight guidance computer 106 can include a memory and a processor and can be linked to display devices 108, I/O devices 107 and/or the other computers 109 of the system 100. The other computers 109 can control other (e.g., non-flight control) aspects of the aircraft's operation. The I/O devices 107 and the display devices 108 are housed in a flight deck 180 of t– See at least ¶ [0022])
receive the flight mission data from the external sources via the communications system during in-flight operation of the aircraft, (FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of components of the system 100 configured to process information in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The instruction receiver 161 onboard the aircraft 102 (FIG. 2) receives information transmitted from the ATC transmitter 160 offboard the aircraft – See at least ¶ [0023]) wherein the flight mission data includes recommended updates to parameters of the active flight plan; (A first display portion 362a displays the instruction to the operator of the aircraft. For example, if the instruction includes a requested change in aircraft course, airspeed, or altitude, the first display portion 362a displays both the nature of the requested change(s) and a numerical target value associated with the changes (block 366a) – See at least ¶ [0023])
generate an inactive flight plan that includes a computer-readable copy of the active flight plan modified based on the recommended updates and store the computer-readable copy in a memory device onboard the aircraft; (An instruction 527 can be initially presented at the communication display 510. The communication display 510 can be a field of one of the MFDs – See at least ¶ [0029]; The altitude display 573 can be presented at the primary flight display 471 (FIG. 4) or another location. The altitude display 573 can include a current altitude indicator 574 and a preview indicator (or “bug”) 576 highlighting a new altitude target associated with the instruction displayed at the communication display 510. The altitude display 573 can also include a preview display 575a which provides a preview of the new target altitude, and an active display 575b which presents the current target altitude. ATC instructions can be directed to the altitude display 573 and the mode control panel 420 without requiring the operator to re-input such information – See at least ¶ [0030]; Here, The original flight plan still exists as shown in the current altitude indicator 574. Thus, the preview indicator 576 is an inactive flight plan that contains a modified version, i.e., copy, of the original flight plan.)
access the inactive flight plan to determine a potential impact of the recommended updates on the active flight plan; (In operation, an incoming ATC instruction 527 is automatically received by the aircraft, for example, via an electronic data link or a voice recognition system that interprets voice instructions from ATC, or another arrangement. The instruction 527 can be automatically displayed at the communication display 510, where it is visually accessible to the operator. As shown in FIG. 5, the instruction can include a directive to climb to and maintain a 14,000 foot altitude. The operator can manipulate the input devices 511 positioned proximate to the communication display 510 to control how the instructions will be handled – See at least ¶ [0031]; Here, the system provides the instructions, e.g., increase altitude, to the pilot. (See at least Fig. 5 #510) This change in altitude is a potential impact on the active flight plan.)
render a graphical image on the display device that presents a contextual preview of the recommended updates and the potential impact of the recommended updates; and (For example, the vertical control portion 525, which is highlighted in FIG. 5, can include a preview display 522a Separated from an active display 522b by a separator 526. The preview display 522a can present a target (corresponding to a new instruction) for review by the operator before the operator further loads or transfers the instruction for implementation, for example, with transfer input device 521 – See at least ¶ [0028] and Fig. 5; Examiner notes that other displays illustrate the different instructions to manipulate the flight plan. For example, Fig. 7 illustrates the graphical representation of the flight plan based on a suggest change to lateral motion.)
in response to acceptance of the recommended updates, (An instruction 527 can be initially presented at the communication display 510. The communication display 510 can be a field of one of the MFDs 478 (FIG. 4), the CDU 450 (FIG. 4), or another display. Input devices 511 (shown as an “accept’ input device 511a, a “load” input device 511b and a “reject” input device 511c) positioned proximate to the communication display 510 allow the operator to accept, reject, or load the instruction displayed there – See at least ¶ [0029]) generate activation data configured to either modify the active flight plan based on the recommended updates or replace the active flight plan with the inactive flight plan, and transmit the activation data to other systems of the aircraft including the flight management system. (Upon receiving the first input signal, i.e., the acceptance of the operator, the system 100 directs the instruction to the appropriate system or subsystem at which it will be handled. For example, when the instruction includes an altitude directive, the instruction can be directed to both the altitude display 573 and the and the vertical control portion 525 of the mode control panel 420 – See at least ¶ [0032])
Griffin discloses the use of storage devices both on and off the aircraft. Griffin does not explicitly disclose that those storage devices have an active flight plan stored therein. However, Gowda discloses aircraft systems and methods with enhanced CPDLC message management and teaches:
a database having an active flight plan stored therein; (Database 120 is coupled to processing unit 110 and can be a memory device (e.g., non-volatile memory, disk, drive, tape, optical storage device, mass storage device, etc.) that stores digital airport, landing, waypoint, target location, and terrain data as either absolute coordinate data or as a function of aircraft position that enables the construction, maintenance, and modification of a flight plan and/or a synthetic or enhanced representation of the aircraft operating environment. Data in the database 120 may be uploaded prior to flight or received from external sources, such as an airport transmitter or onboard sensors – See at least ¶ [0026])
Griffin does not explicitly teach, but Gowda further teaches:
access the inactive flight plan to determine a potential impact of the recommended updates on the active flight plan including an estimated travel time to a destination and an estimated fuel on board upon arrival at the destination; (In one exemplary embodiment, the modified flight plan view, such as that in FIG. 7, enables the operator to immediately visualize the changes on overall flight plan (both vertically and laterally), on flight plan performance parameters (distance to go, estimated time enroute, estimated time of arrival, fuel remaining, GS, leg fuel, gross weight, wind direction/speed, OAT, ISA, flight path angle, altitude), and on flight plan position parameters (latitude, longitude, mag. Var) at that point in comparison to previous flight plan due to uplink flight modification message. A brief example of modified performance – See at least ¶ [0052])
render a graphical image on the display device that presents a contextual preview that includes both the recommended updates and the potential impact of the recommended updates including the estimated travel time to the destination and the estimated fuel on board upon arrival at the destination; (FIG. 8 is a flight plan view 800 generated by the system 100 on the display device 160 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The flight plan view 800 includes a list of the flight plan elements 801-804 in chronological order with flight plan element 802 (HEC) as the active waypoint similar to the views discussed above in FIGS. 3 and 5. In this exemplary embodiment, the flight plan view 800 includes performance parameters for each flight plan element 801-804 in the form of leg fuel 810, fuel remaining 812, and gross weight 814. The performance parameters, position parameters, and other parameters that are displayed may be selected from a display menu (not shown). As additionally shown in FIG. 8, the flight plan view 800 includes symbology 820 representing a proposed flight plan modification from a CPDLC message (e.g., FANS U74). In this instance, the CPDLC message is instructing the operator to proceed directly from the current position to waypoint CIVET (flight plan element 804). Upon selection and acceptance of the CPDLC message, similar to the mechanism described above, the system 100 will modify the flight plan as shown in Fig. 9 – See at least ¶ [0053])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin to provide for aircraft systems and methods with enhanced CPDLC message management, as taught in Gowda, to provide systems and methods that improve management of the messages between air traffic control and an aircraft. (At Gowda ¶ [0004])
The combination of Griffin and Gowda does not explicitly teach maintain the inactive flight plan in an intermediate, inactive state to enable assessment and review of the inactive flight plan without implementing the recommended updates into the active flight plans. However, Fournier discloses display of meteorological data in aircraft and teaches:
maintain the inactive flight plan in an intermediate, inactive state to enable assessment and review of the inactive flight plan without implementing the recommended updates into the active flight plans (Flight plan (FPLN) 202, for inputting geographical elements forming the “skeleton” of the route to be followed, such as the points imposed by the departure and arrival procedures, the waypoints, the air corridors, commonly called “airways' An FMS generally hosts several flight plans (the so-called “active' flight plan over which the aeroplane is guided, the “temporary’ flight plan making it possible to make modifications without activating the guidance over this flight plan and the “inactive' working flight plans (called “secondary') – See at least ¶ [0073])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin and Gowda to provide for the display of meteorological data in the aircraft, as taught in Fournier, to provide the pilot with a summary of the meteorological phenomena that the aircraft will encounter along its route. The information provided is contextual and relevant for the flight plan, the summary being produced by a correlation using intersections between the available meteorological data and the planned flight plan and/or the trajectory actually flown, on the four space and time dimensions, by projection of the position of the aircraft into the future. (At Fournier ¶ [0013])
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Griffin does not explicitly teach, but Gowda further teaches:
render a popup window that includes a message configured to direct an operator’s attention to the potential impact of the recommended updates. (In step 225, the system 100 presents a dialog (or pop-up) box to the operator in order to provide details regarding the proposed modification and enable operator acceptance or rejection. Reference is briefly made to FIG. 4. which is an example of a dialog box 400 resulting from the selection of symbology 320 of Fig. 3 – See at least ¶ [0046])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin and Fournier to provide for aircraft systems and methods with enhanced CPDLC message management, as taught in Gowda, to provide systems and methods that improve management of the messages between air traffic control and an aircraft. (At Gowda ¶ [0004])
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18,Griffin further teaches:
wherein the external sources include an airline operation controller, electronic flight bag, or cockpit mission manager. (In one aspect of this embodiment, the system 100 includes a receiver 161 (e.g., an air traffic control (ATC) data receiver) that automatically receives electronic instructions transmitted to the aircraft 102 from a transmitter 160 (e.g., an ATC transmitter) – See at least ¶ [0021])
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19,Griffin further teaches:
render, on the display device, a graphical user interface that allows for a user to accept or reject the recommended updates, via a human-machine interface, (An instruction 527 can be initially presented at the communication display 510. The communication display 510 can be a field of one of the MFDs 478 (FIG. 4), the CDU 450 (FIG. 4), or another display. Input devices 511 (shown as an “accept’ input device 511a, a “load” input device 511b and a “reject” input device 511c) positioned proximate to the communication display 510 allow the operator to accept, reject or load the instruction displayed at there – See at least ¶ [0029] and Fig. 5-10) wherein the active flight plan is modified or replaced based on the recommended updates in response to the user accepting the recommended updates and the active flight plan remains the same in response to the user rejecting the recommended updates, (For example, the operator can provide a receipt signal to the Source of the ATC instruction by activating the accept input device 511a if the instruction is accepted, or a reject input device 511c if the instruction is rejected. Once the instruction has been accepted, the operator can activate the load input device 511b to direct a first input signal – See at least ¶ [0031]) wherein the graphical user interface allows for a user to request expected messages that are predicted to be displayed to the user in the event that the recommended updates are implemented into the active flight plan, wherein the expected messages include one or more flight management advisory messages. (In other embodiments, systems and methods generally similar to those described above can be used to automatically update displays and/or implement new target instructions regarding aspects of the aircraft's operation other than its heading, altitude and airspeed. For example, as shown in FIG. 8, the communication display 510 can present an ATC instruction 827 to tune the aircraft radio to a particular radio frequency (e.g., “CONTACT OAKLAND CENTER ON 124.000"). When the operator activates the load input device 511b, this instruction is automatically routed to a radio panel 830 and presented at a preview display 832a. When the operator activates a transfer input device 831 at the radio panel 830, the new target radio frequency is loaded into an active display 832b – See at least ¶ [0037])
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 25, the combination of Griffin and Gowda does not explicitly teach, but Fournier further teaches:
wherein the contextual preview includes a minimum fuel on board parameter and an extra fuel estimate. (Predictions (PRED) 206, for constructing an optimized vertical profile on the lateral and vertical trajectory and giving the estimations of distance, time, altitude, Velocity, fuel and wind notably on each point, at each change of piloting parameter and at destination, which will be displayed to the crew – See at least ¶ [0077])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin and Gowda to provide for the display of meteorological data in the aircraft, as taught in Fournier, to provide the pilot with a summary of the meteorological phenomena that the aircraft will encounter along its route. The information provided is contextual and relevant for the flight plan, the summary being produced by a correlation using intersections between the available meteorological data and the planned flight plan and/or the trajectory actually flown, on the four space and time dimensions, by projection of the position of the aircraft into the future. (At Fournier ¶ [0013])
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Gowda and Fournier, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of Schwindt et al. (US 2022/0139233 A1, “Schwindt”).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, the combination of Griffin, Gowda, and Fournier does not explicitly teach generate a warning in response to the potential impact of the recommended updates posing a risk to the aircraft. However, Schwindt discloses method and system for updating a flight plan and teaches:
generate a warning in response to the potential impact of the recommended updates posing a risk to the aircraft. (If the FMS, TAWS, EFB or other avionics device identifies or determines any risk to safe flight, (e.g. terrain proximity), then a warning signal can be generated that can notify the pilot or trigger the FMS to implement a predetermined response such as rejecting the updates to the flight plan, or generating an indication of the warnings or alerts to initiate corrective action by the pilot – See at least ¶ [0040])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin, Gowda, and Fournier to provide for the method and system for updating a flight plan, as taught in Schwindt, to determine whether the second set of flight parameters plan, i.e., the modified flight plan, presents a risk to safe flight. (At Schwindt ¶ [0004])
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, he combination of Griffin, Gowda, and Fournier does not explicitly teach but Schwindt further teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to, by the one or more processors, provide validation of the recommended updates prior to insertion into the active flight plan. (Currently , updates to flight plans received by the FMS are not automatically validated for safety relative to terrain , obstacles, SUAS, NOTAMS, SIGMETS, PIREPS, and the like. Aspects of the present disclosure relate to providing a method and system for automatically performing a safety validation of at least a portion of a flight plan through an avionics device – See at least ¶ [0012])
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the methods and systems for automatically displaying information, including air traffic control instructions of Griffin, Gowda, and Fournier to provide for the method and system for updating a flight plan, as taught in Schwindt, to determine whether the second set of flight parameters plan, i.e., the modified flight plan, presents a risk to safe flight. (At Schwindt ¶ [0004])
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20, 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin in view of Gowda and Fournier, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662