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 02/26/2026. Wherein, Claims 1, 4, 12-16 are amended and claims 17-19 are new. Claims 1-29 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16, under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections, under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore the previous rejections are maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues:
PORTAS presents horizontal profiles (paragraph [0009]) representing horizontal trajectories with aircraft waypoints and vertical profiles (see paragraph [0012]) representing the climb and descent maneuvers, as well as the acceleration and deceleration maneuvers to be performed by the aircraft in order to comply with altitude and speed constraints. PORTAS does not disclose any fragmentation of the overall flight profile. Therefore, PORTAS also does not address the criterion for adapting a flight phase command to a subsequent flight phase for each of the flight phases.
The system of Portas identifies different strategies based on domains. These domains are ascent domains, descent domains, and a holding domain (what would be considered a cruising domain). Because strategies exist for each domain, the system is fragmentating an overall flight profile in order to know at when to implement the appropriate strategies. Further, Portas refers to strategies being related specifically to constraints during a “landing phase” (¶ [0409])
For these reasons the Examiner does not agree with arguments above.
YOUNG focuses solely on the aircraft's descent phase (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0002]).
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully asserts that Claim 1 is therefore novel as regard to the prior art documents.
The Examiner is unsure of the reference cited above with respect to Young is supposed to be point to. Young, as cited in the office action, is a published patent which does not contain paragraph markings, but instead has column and row numbers.
However, as stated in the previous office action and above, Portas discloses aircraft phases except for an “approach” phase. However, Young discloses an approach phase and other phases beyond the descent phase. (Col. 2, ln. 20-29)
Further, the technical problem to be solved by the present invention is the
optimization of speed constraint management according to the aircraft's flight phases.
Based on PORTAS, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the
problem of optimizing speed constraint management according to the aircraft's flight phases, as there is nothing in PORTAS to prompt such a question.
Furthermore, as YOUNG focuses solely on the descent phase of the aircraft, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be prompted to ask this question when reading YOUNG either.
As stated above the constraints within the micro-strategies of Portas are directly related to domains in the flight which are phases of the flight. Further, Portas provides for target speed constraints along the route of the aircraft. (¶ [0340]) Additionally, Young provides for speed constraints based on flight phase. (Col. 2, ln. 20-29)
Therefore, the Examiner does not agree with the above arguments.
Even assuming that one of ordinary skill in the art considers the technical
problem, one of ordinary skill in the art would not determine anything from PORTAS that would raise questions about managing an aircraft's flight profile in relation to the aircraft's speed. In fact, document PORTAS proposes generating micro-strategies without identifying the aircraft's flight phase and therefore without taking into account the fact that the aircraft's behavior varies depending on this flight phase. More specifically, the speed constraints to be taken into account during a climb phase, which can then be respected according to a reverse speed profile, cannot be respected in the same way during a descent phase. One of ordinary skill in the art could then consult document YOUNG. However, nothing in document YOUNG appears to disclose a means of managing the different flight phases, as YOUNG is specific to a single flight phase.
This argument relies on Portas not teaching flight phases. However, as described above, both Portas and Young discloses flight phases with specific constraints associated with them.
Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Nothing in PORTAS or YOUNG suggests that the flight plan can be divided into different phases, especially since the speed constraints applicable during the descent phase do not apply to the climb phases, as stated above.
As provided above both Portas and Young provide for divided phases of the aircraft flight. Portas for example has strategies corresponding to ascent, descent, and holding strategies. (¶ [0333]-[0359])
One of ordinary skill in the art could potentially adapt the knowledge acquired through YOUNG to improve the descent phase in the case of his micro-strategies. However, this is limited solely to the descent of the aircraft and not to the entire flight plan and its various phases.
Because Portas discloses multiple phases, including ascent, cruise, and descent, and Young discloses those phases in addition to an approach phase the Examiner disagrees with the argument that improvements of Young could only be applied to the descent phase.
Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art searching for improving the
management of flight plan speed constraints, would not have arrived to the solution of the present invention by the reading of PORTAS and YOUNG.
Therefore Claim 1 is inventive.
For the reasons above, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Moreover, there is no suggestion or disclosure in PORTAS or YOUNG separately or in any proper combination that render obvious the features of the present claimed invention.
Further, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the USPTO bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An "expansive and flexible approach" should be applied when determining obviousness based on a combination of prior art references. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). However, a claimed invention combining multiple known elements is not rendered obvious simply because each element was known independently in the prior art. Id. at 1741. Rather, there must still be some "reason that would have prompted" a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the specific way that he or she did. Id. Also, modification of a prior art reference may be obvious only if there exists a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to make the change. Id. at 1740-41.
Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine PORTAS and YOUNG.
PORTAS focuses on horizontal profiles (paragraph [0009]) representing
horizontal trajectories with aircraft waypoints and vertical profiles (see paragraph [0012]) representing the climb and descent maneuvers, as well as the acceleration and deceleration maneuvers to be performed by the aircraft in order to comply with altitude and speed constraints.
YOUNG focuses solely on the aircraft's descent phase (see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0002]).
In this regard, Applicant asserts that there is no proper "reason that would have prompted" a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as set forth in the Office Action.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Young provides generating a four dimensional flight plan of an optimized profile descent that is accurate in compliance with an assigned required time of arrival.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above arguments unpersuasive.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner attempts to combine the cited references and/or knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at the various features recited in claim 1 with the use of impermissible hindsight, using knowledge directly gleaned from the Applicant's disclosure. Moreover, the cited prior art completely lacks any disclosure of the desirability of the combination recited in claim 1; and the cited prior art completely lacks any disclosure of an objective reason to combine the teachings of the prior art to arrive at the combination recited in claim 1. (See MPEP § 2143.01 III-IV).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Here, both Portas and Young describe speed constraints for flight phases of an aircraft travelling along a route. This knowledge is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made. Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness cannot be properly maintained without a proper disclosure of each and every element and the motivation to combine the elements. Here the applied references fail to provide a proper disclosure of each and every element. Moreover, the applied references fail to provide any motivation that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in a manner set forth in the Office Action.
Based on the arguments noted above, independent claims 1, 12, and 14 have been shown to be allowable over the applied rejection. Dependent claims 2 - 14 depend directly or indirectly on the above-noted independent claims. Accordingly, these claims are also allowable over the applied rejection as well.
For the reasons provided above the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The rejection of dependent claims 15 and 16 that includes the added reference of BOORMAN fails to render obvious the claims. In particular, PORTAS and YOUNG as described above do not render obvious the independent claim(s), which they directly and/or indirectly depend. Additionally added reference BOORMAN does not cure the deficiencies of PORTAS and YOUNG. Accordingly, the Examiner is respectfully requested to withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As provided above there are no deficiencies in Portas and Young to cure. Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
It is for the above reasons that the Examiner maintains the previous rejections under 35 USC § 103.
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) 1-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besada Portas et al. (US 2016/0104382 A1, “Besada Portas”) in view of Young et al. (US 9,224,302 B1, “Young”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Besada Portas discloses method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft and teaches:
A method for managing speed constraints of a flight plan of an aircraft, the method comprising the following steps (A recursive process, which may constitute an embodiment of the method of the present disclosure, defines an ordered set of actions, each of them devoted to the resolution of a given constraint. Each action in the sequence can be of height or speed constraint fulfilling type, and it may be performed prior to the entrance in the constrained domain of application of that constraint – See at least ¶ [0168])
identifying a current flight phase from among Climb, Cruise, Descent and [] with a flight system, (The invention identifies different strategies based on domains. These strategies include CAS-Mach Ascent Micro-Strategies, Mach-CAS descent micro-strategies, and Holding strategies, i.e., a cruise – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0359] Because the strategies are selected based on an ascent, hold, and descent, then the system must identify these different phases.)
determining a CAS speed profile, with the flight system, the speed profile establishing a behavior of the aircraft with respect to a CAS speed setpoint, the CAS speed setpoint being a function of the current flight phase, (The CAS-Mach ascent, i.e., a function of the ascent phase, micro-strategy addresses an altitude and a velocity constraint by performing two MCTA actions: the first MCTA action holds CAS speed, and the second one holds Mach. This micro-strategy only generates new contexts if the following conditions are met: The expected velocity of the aircraft is given in CAS. There is at least one unresolved altitude constraint and one unresolved velocity constraint left that overlap along the trajectory – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0336])
determining a Mach speed profile with the flight system, the Mach speed profile establishing a behavior of the aircraft with respect to a Mach setpoint, the Mach setpoint being a speed setpoint transcribed into an equivalent Mach number, the Mach setpoint being a function of the current flight phase, (The target velocity of the aircraft is given in Mach. The altitude of the altitude constraint affects the velocity constraint. The maximum target altitude of that constraint is higher than the minimum expected altitude. That is, the constraint main need the aircraft to increase altitude – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0339]; Examiner notes that there are different strategies for both the CAS speed profile and Mach speed profile depending on if the aircraft is ascending or descending, i.e., different flight phases.)
determining a Cross-Over altitude with the flight system, the Cross-Over altitude being an altitude of transition from an automatic control of the aircraft according to the CAS speed profile to an automatic control according to the Mach speed profile, the Cross-Over altitude being an optimized altitude of transition between the CAS speed profile and the Mach speed profile, (If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude (altitude at which a specified CAS and Mach value represent the same TAS) computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set – See at least ¶ [0340]; Examiner notes that the invention is directed towards both manned and unmanned aircraft. Because it is directed towards unmanned aircraft, the control of the aircraft is automatic.)
controlling the aircraft's current speed based on the Cross-Over altitude with the flight system, with the aircraft's current speed being controlled according to the CAS speed profile or the Mach speed profile, depending on the current flight phase, and
determining an end-of-applicability criterion a the current speed profile with the flight system, the current speed profile being the CAS speed profile or the Mach speed profile. (The domain of application (DoA) of a constraint may be the boundary to which the constraint must be restricted, that is, the limits within which the constraint should effect: for example, a given constraint may refer to the altitude at which the aircraft must fly, between two determined waypoints along the flight track. Then, the domain of application of that altitude constraint would be the along track distance defined by two determined waypoints along the flight track. Then, the domain of application of that altitude constraint would be the along track distance defined by two waypoints, in which the altitude restriction is in force – See at least ¶ [0075]; If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude (altitude at which a specified CAS and Mach value represent the same TAS) computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, two MCTA actions are added at the end of the previous sequence. In the second one, a hold element is added before the two MCTA actions, and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraint’s domain of application – See at least ¶ [0340])
Basada Portas discloses applying speed and altitude constraints over a domain. Basada Portas does not explicitly teach that the domains include identifying specific flight phases including Climb, Cruise, Descent, and Approach.
identifying a current flight phase from among [] Cruise, Descent and Approach, (One highly efficient performance characteristic of a transport category aircraft may include a constant cruise phase followed by an idle-power descent from cruise altitude to the landing. This idle-power descent may include a constant Mach descent phase, a constant calibrated airspeed (CAS) descent phase, a deceleration from constant CAS to a statutory speed (e.g., 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL), a 250 knot descent phase, a deceleration to final approach speed, and a landing – See at least Col. 2, ln. 20-29)
In summary, Basada Portas discloses applying speed and altitude constraints over different domains, i.e., phases. These domains include ascent (climb), hold (cruise), and descent. Basada Portas does not explicitly teach an approach domain. However, Young discloses four dimensional flight management with time control system and related method and teaches flight phases including an approach phase and its related speed constraint.
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 method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft of Besada Portas to provide for the four dimensional flight management with time control system and related method, as taught in Young, to generate a four dimensional flight path of an optimized profile descent that is accurate in compliance with an assigned Required Time of Arrival (RTA). (At Young Col. 1, ln. 24-26)
Regarding claim 2, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the CAS speed profile comprises a step of constructing a first CAS speed profile, the speed setpoint according to the first CAS speed profile being constructed on the basis of aircraft performance levels. (Therefore, the output of the method specifies a series of actions (vertical/speed/configuration actions) that fully and univocally define an aircraft trajectory that complies both with the given Air Traffic Control constraints and with the user preferences, as well as with the Aircraft Performance Model (physical limitations of the aircraft) – See at least ¶ [0244])
Regarding claim 3, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the CAS speed profile comprises a step of constructing a second CAS speed profile, the speed profile according to the second speed profile allowing the aircraft to observe all of the AT and AT or ABOVE speed constraints in the flight phase. (As shown in Fig. 10, the constraints are determined over multiple domains. Thus, multiple CAS speed profiles to meet those constraints are also determined.)
Regarding claim 4, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the speed profile comprises a step of constructing a third CAS speed profile, (Fig. 10 shows domains 1-4, i.e., at least 3. Each domain has its own CAS Speed profile.) the speed setpoint according to the third speed profile being constructed in the knowledge of a predefined target speed of the aircraft and a predefined speed constraint, the predefined speed constraint being an AT or AT or ABOVE speed constraint. (Each flight context of the set of flight contexts may further include a set of resolved flight constraints, a set of unresolved flight constraints, a sequence of actions to be performed by the aircraft in order to comply with at least one flight constraint, or a combination thereof. The set of resolved flight constraints may include a set of resolved altitude flight constraints, a set of resolved speed flight constraints, or both. The set of unresolved flight constraints may include a set of unresolved altitude flight constraints, a set of unresolved speed flight constraints, or both. The flight constraints may be expressed in a flight intent description language (FIDL) comprising lexemes that univocally express a way of piloting the aircraft and univocally lead to a determinate aircraft trajectory when all configurable parameters involved in the FIDL lexemes are determined – See at least ¶ [0019])
Regarding claim 5, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the Mach speed profile comprises a step of constructing a first Mach speed profile, (Actions in the sequence may describe many different types of maneuver: it can be a level thrust acceleration, a Mach-CAS descent or a constant path descent, among others. All actions can be classified as altitude actions, if the maneuver affects the final altitude, and velocity actions, if the maneuver affects the final speed. An action can be an altitude action and a velocity action at the same time, if it affects both altitude and speed. Altitude actions have a target altitude and velocity actions have a target speed. As occurs in ICDL, the target altitude or speed may consist on an interval of values. These values allow computing an estimated altitude or speed at the end of the sequence (optimization of the action-sequence, according to user preferences) – See at least ¶ [0280]) the Mach setpoint according to the first Mach speed profile being determined as a function of a predefined Mach. (Additionally, different kinds of height and speed found in Flight Intent (FI) constraints may be converted to canonical definition: pressure, altitude and CAS (Calibrated Air-speed) or Mach speed (but only one of these kinds of speed may be active at a time – See at least ¶ [0167])
Regarding claim 6, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining the Mach speed profile comprises a step of constructing a second Mach speed profile, the Mach setpoint according to the second Mach speed profile allowing the aircraft to observe all of the AT and AT or ABOVE speed constraints in the flight phase. (Similarly to the CAS speed profiles, the Mach speed profiles are determined over multiple domains and are constrained by speed constraints – See at least Fig. 10)
Regarding claim 7, Besada Portas
wherein the step of determining a Cross-Over altitude comprises a step of calculating a first Cross-Over altitude, the first Cross-Over altitude being calculated as a function of a predefined first AT or AT or ABOVE CAS speed constraint, a previously defined CAS speed and a previously defined Mach. (The expected velocity of the aircraft is given in CAS. There is at least one unresolved altitude constraint and one unresolved velocity constraint left that overlap along the trajectory. The target velocity of the aircraft is given in Mach. The altitude of the altitude constraint affects the velocity constraint. The maximum target altitude of that constraint is higher than the minimum expected altitude. That is, the constraint may need the aircraft to increase altitude. If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude (altitude at which a specified CAS and Mach value represent the same TAS) computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, two MCTA actions are added at the end of the previous sequence. In the second one, a hold element is added before the two MCTA actions, and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraint’s domain of application, d1 – See at least ¶ [0335]-[0340])
Regarding claim 8, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining a Cross-Over altitude comprises a step of calculating a second Cross-Over altitude, the second Cross- Over altitude being a function of a second predefined AT or AT or ABOVE CAS speed constraint, of an imposed flight level and of a previously defined Mach. (The expected velocity of the aircraft is given in Mach. There is at least one unresolved altitude constraint and one unresolved velocity constraint left that overlap along the trajectory. The target velocity of the aircraft is given in CAS. The altitude of the altitude constraint affects the Velocity constraint. The minimum target altitude of that constraint is lower than the maximum expected altitude. That is, the constraint may need the aircraft to decrease altitude. If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, a hold element is added before the two ITD actions, and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraints domain of application, d1. In the second one, two ITD actions are added at the end of the previous sequence – See at least ¶ [0352]-[0357])
Regarding claim 9, Besada Portas further teaches:
wherein the step of determining a Cross-Over altitude comprises a step of calculating a chosen Cross-Over altitude, the chosen Cross- Over altitude being the altitude that allows the aircraft to observe the CAS speed setpoint. (If conditions are met and the context contains any ascent velocity constraint, the crossover altitude is computed again but replacing the target speed with the speed of the ascent velocity constraint – See at least ¶ [0341])
Regarding claim 10, Besada Portas
wherein the end-of-applicability criterion is an end of the flight phase or having reached a predefined altitude. (Each flight context of the set of flight contexts may further include a set of resolved flight constraints, a set of unresolved flight constraints, a sequence of actions to be performed by the aircraft in order to comply with at least one flight constraint, or a combination thereof. The set of resolved flight constraints may include a set of resolved altitude flight constraints, a set of resolved speed flight constraints, or both – See at least ¶ [0019])
Regarding claim 11, Besada Portas further teaches:
comprising a step of elimination of a speed constraint following the step of determining the end-of-applicability criterion. (Each flight context of the set of flight contexts may further include a set of resolved flight constraints, a set of unresolved flight constraints, a sequence of actions to be performed by the aircraft in order to comply with at least one flight constraint, or a combination thereof. The set of resolved flight constraints may include a set of resolved altitude flight constraints, a set of resolved speed flight constraints, or both – See at least ¶ [0019])
Regarding claim 13, Besada Portas further teaches:
comprising a step of monitoring the speed constraints with the flight system. (When the preprocessing is completed, the initial context can be generated. The context is a data structure that contains all the information needed to make a decision on what the next maneuver of the aircraft will be. This may include the following: A list of unresolved altitude constraints sorted by their starting and end along-track distances. A list of unresolved speed constraints sorted by their starting and end along-track distances. Speed constraints may have different speed limits depending on the altitude. A list of resolved altitude constraints. A list of resolved speed constraints. A sequence of actions (maneuvers) to be performed by the aircraft. – see at least ¶ [0266]-[0275])
Regarding claim 14, Besada Portas discloses method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft and teaches:
A method for managing speed constraints of a flight plan of an aircraft, the method comprising the following steps (A recursive process, which may constitute an embodiment of the method of the present disclosure, defines an ordered set of actions, each of them devoted to the resolution of a given constraint. Each action in the sequence can be of height or speed constraint fulfilling type, and it may be performed prior to the entrance in the constrained domain of application of that constraint – See at least ¶ [0168])
identifying a current flight phase from among Climb, Cruise, Descent and [] with a flight system, (The invention identifies different strategies based on domains. These strategies include CAS-Mach Ascent Micro-Strategies, Mach-CAS descent micro-strategies, and Holding strategies, i.e., a cruise – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0359] Because the strategies are selected based on an ascent, hold, and descent, then the system must identify these different phases.)
determining a CAS speed profile, with the flight system, the speed profile establishing a behavior of the aircraft with respect to a CAS speed setpoint, the CAS speed setpoint being a function of the current flight phase, (The CAS-Mach ascent, i.e., a function of the ascent phase, micro-strategy addresses an altitude and a velocity constraint by performing two MCTA actions: the first MCTA action holds CAS speed, and the second one holds Mach. This micro-strategy only generates new contexts if the following conditions are met: The expected velocity of the aircraft is given in CAS. There is at least one unresolved altitude constraint and one unresolved velocity constraint left that overlap along the trajectory – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0336])
determining a Mach speed profile with the flight system, the Mach speed profile establishing a behavior of the aircraft with respect to a Mach setpoint, the Mach setpoint being a speed setpoint transcribed into an equivalent Mach number, the Mach setpoint being a function of the current flight phase, (The target velocity of the aircraft is given in Mach. The altitude of the altitude constraint affects the velocity constraint. The maximum target altitude of that constraint is higher than the minimum expected altitude. That is, the constraint main need the aircraft to increase altitude – See at least ¶ [0333]-[0339]; Examiner notes that there are different strategies for both the CAS speed profile and Mach speed profile depending on if the aircraft is ascending or descending, i.e., different flight phases.)
determining a Cross-Over altitude with the flight system, the Cross-Over altitude being an altitude of transition from an automatic control of the aircraft according to the CAS speed profile to an automatic control according to the Mach speed profile, the Cross-Over altitude being an optimized altitude of transition between the CAS speed profile and the Mach speed profile, (If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude (altitude at which a specified CAS and Mach value represent the same TAS) computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set – See at least ¶ [0340]; Examiner notes that the invention is directed towards both manned and unmanned aircraft. Because it is directed towards unmanned aircraft, the control of the aircraft is automatic.)
controlling the aircraft's current speed based on the Cross-Over altitude with the flight system, with the aircraft's current speed being controlled according to the CAS speed profile or the Mach speed profile, depending on the current flight phase, and
determining an end-of-applicability criterion a the current speed profile with the flight system, the current speed profile being the CAS speed profile or the Mach speed profile, and (The domain of application (DoA) of a constraint may be the boundary to which the constraint must be restricted, that is, the limits within which the constraint should effect: for example, a given constraint may refer to the altitude at which the aircraft must fly, between two determined waypoints along the flight track. Then, the domain of application of that altitude constraint would be the along track distance defined by two determined waypoints along the flight track. Then, the domain of application of that altitude constraint would be the along track distance defined by two waypoints, in which the altitude restriction is in force – See at least ¶ [0075]; If previous conditions are met, and the crossover altitude (altitude at which a specified CAS and Mach value represent the same TAS) computed with the expected and the target speed is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, two MCTA actions are added at the end of the previous sequence. In the second one, a hold element is added before the two MCTA actions, and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraint’s domain of application – See at least ¶ [0340])
adjusting the speed of the aircraft with respect to a first speed constraint of the next flight phase. (If conditions are met and the context contains any ascent velocity constraint, the crossover altitude is computed again but replacing the target speed with the speed of the ascent velocity constraint. If the altitude calculated is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, two MCTA actions followed by a velocity action (LTA or LTD) are added to the end of the previous sequence. The velocity action depends on which action should be taken to comply with the original target speed of the velocity constraint. In the second context, a hold element is added before the two MCTA actions and the corresponding velocity action (LTA or LTD), and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraint’s domain of application d1 – See at least ¶ [0341])
Basada Portas discloses applying speed and altitude constraints over a domain. Basada Portas does not explicitly teach that the domains include identifying specific flight phases including Climb, Cruise, Descent, and Approach.
identifying a current flight phase from among [] Cruise, Descent and Approach, (One highly efficient performance characteristic of a transport category aircraft may include a constant cruise phase followed by an idle-power descent from cruise altitude to the landing. This idle-power descent may include a constant Mach descent phase, a constant calibrated airspeed (CAS) descent phase, a deceleration from constant CAS to a statutory speed (e.g., 250 knots below 10,000 feet MSL), a 250 knot descent phase, a deceleration to final approach speed, and a landing – See at least Col. 2, ln. 20-29)
In summary, Basada Portas discloses applying speed and altitude constraints over different domains, i.e., phases. These domains include ascent (climb), hold (cruise), and descent. Basada Portas does not explicitly teach an approach domain. However, Young discloses four dimensional flight management with time control system and related method and teaches flight phases including an approach phase and its related speed constraint.
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 method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft of Besada Portas to provide for the four dimensional flight management with time control system and related method, as taught in Young, to generate a four dimensional flight path of an optimized profile descent that is accurate in compliance with an assigned Required Time of Arrival (RTA). (At Young Col. 1, ln. 24-26)
Regarding claim 17, Besada Portas does not explicitly teach, but Young further teaches:
wherein the flight system comprises a Flight Management System (FMS) and the method further comprises implementing the Flight Management System (FMS). (Accordingly, an embodiment of the inventive concepts disclosed herein is directed to a system for four dimensional time controlled flight management. The system may comprise a four dimensional flight management system (4DFMS) onboard an aircraft, the 4DFMS including a flight management computer (FMC) operably coupled with a non-transitory memory, a time control module operably coupled with the FMC, an input output device, a display, a route information module, an aircraft information module, and a weather information module, the FMC including a one processor con figured for controlling a flight control system and an auto throttle system associated with control of the aircraft, the FMC further configured for generating an initial descent path for the aircraft, the initial descent path including a top of descent and a reference speed – See at least Col. 3, ln. 5-21)
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 method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft of Besada Portas to provide for the four dimensional flight management with time control system and related method, as taught in Young, to generate a four dimensional flight path of an optimized profile descent that is accurate in compliance with an assigned Required Time of Arrival (RTA). (At Young Col. 1, ln. 24-26)
Regarding claim 18, Besada Portas further teaches:
comprising a step of maintaining an imposed speed of the flight phase with the flight system. (The input of the whole method is a set of constraints along with their domain application (DoA). For instance, altitude or speed constraints attached to a pair of distances along the horizontal profile indicating the start and the end of those constraints – See at least ¶ [0238]; Examiner notes that the invention maintains constraints during the DoA, i.e., maintaining an imposed speed of the DoA.)
Regarding claim 19, Besada Portas further teaches:
comprising an additional step of adjusting the speed of the aircraft with respect to a first speed constraint of the next flight phase with the flight system. (If conditions are met and the context contains any ascent velocity constraint, the crossover altitude is computed again but replacing the target speed with the speed of the ascent velocity constraint. If the altitude calculated is between the expected and the target altitude, two contexts are added to the output set. In the first context, two MCTA actions followed by a velocity action (LTA or LTD) are added to the end of the previous sequence. The velocity action depends on which action should be taken to comply with the original target speed of the velocity constraint. In the second context, a hold element is added before the two MCTA actions and the corresponding velocity action (LTA or LTD), and a fixed position is added at the end referring to the initial along-track distance of the constraint’s domain of application d1 – See at least ¶ [0341])
Claim(s) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besada Portas in view of Young, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Boorman et al. (US 2011/0118908 A1, “Boorman”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Besada Portas and Young does not explicitly teach displaying speed constraints during the flight phase. However, Boorman discloses methods and systems for management of airplane speed profile and teaches:
comprising a step of displaying speed constraints during the flight phase on a display. (Now referring to FIG. 8, the controls for nominal descent speed are provided by the descent speed selector 170. The pilot may select the economic speed 170a via a cursor control device, or have the economic speed selected as a function of a previously stored flight plan parameter. The economic speed is a speed, generally calculated by the FMC, to optimize a certain cost index or parameter Such that the airplane executes the descent for minimum time, minimum fuel, an optimal balance of these two factors for best economy, or some other criterion. The economic speed is displayed in the field and a radio button associated with the economic speed field is highlighted – See at least ¶ [0078])
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 method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft of Besada Portas and Young to provide for the methods and systems for management of airplane speed profile, as taught in Boorman, to provide a tool that simplifies the flight crew's awareness and management of the airplane speed profile in all phases of flight. (At Boorman ¶ [0005])
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Besada Portas and Young does not explicitly teach, but Boorman further teaches:
A computer program product, said computer program comprising code instructions configured and/or operable to perform the steps of the method as claimed in claim 1, when said computer program is run on a computer. (Many embodiments of the disclosure described below may take the form of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a programmable computer. Those skilled in the relevant art will appreciate that the invention can be practiced on other computer system configurations as well. The disclosure can be embodied in a special purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one or more of the computer-executable instructions described below. Accordingly, the term "computer as generally used herein refers to any data processor that can be engaged in a cockpit, including computers for cockpit display Systems, Flight Management Computers (FMC), Flight Control Computers (FCC), Electronic Flight Bags (EFB), laptops, laptops, or other hand-held devices – See at least ¶ [0024])
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 method for creating and choosing a determinate piloting strategy for an aircraft of Besada Portas and Young to provide for the methods and systems for management of airplane speed profile, as taught in Boorman, to provide a tool that simplifies the flight crew's awareness and management of the airplane speed profile in all phases of flight. (At Boorman ¶ [0005])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights