DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20 are amended. Claim 10 is original. Claims 4 and 14 are cancelled.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 3/17/2026 and IDS filed 3/30/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/17/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 11), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 11), the remarks request reconsideration in light of the amendments. However, the amendments to Claim 20 do not change the analysis under 112(f) as detailed below. Therefore, the terms continue to invoke 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 11-12), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the Double Patenting rejections (presented on p. 12), the arguments request reconsideration in view of the amendments. However, upon reconsideration, the rejection is maintained and rationale updated based on amendments (see the complete rejection below).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 12-14), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments regarding 102 are persuasive based on the amendments to Claims 1, 11, and. 20. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, the arguments regarding the subject matter of US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.) and US2009/0105890A1 (Jones et al.) are not persuasive.
The arguments (p. 13) state that Swearingen et al. does not disclose determining a directional bias caused by the actuation failure, and states that Swearingen et al. at block 210 makes a binary decision as opposed to a value of direction which does not read on the claimed limitation. The office respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the term “directional bias” is recited in the claim, but not provided with any further definition. The specification at ¶0077 likewise recites the term, but does not specify that a directional bias must include any particular value or piece of data. The office therefore submits that the term should be interpreted under the plain and ordinary definitions of “directional” and “bias,” and that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term includes any tendency or inclination pertaining to direction. The office submits that even if Swearingen et al. were only to disclose a determination that the aircraft changes course (disclosed by Swearingen et al. [0026]), that this would read on the BRI of the term. Secondly, it is the position of the office that even if the term “directional bias” were to require a value indicative of direction, that Swearingen et al. does disclose this as well, as the determination that the aircraft is changing course (as recited in [0026]) is based on navigation sensors 106 which are disclosed in [0025] as e.g. inertial measurement unit, air speed and altitude sensors, measuring aircraft's pitch, roll or yaw (i.e. the determination of changed course necessarily includes determination of direction values).
The arguments (p. 13) further state that Swearingen et al. does not provide for the limitations regarding the modified flight plan based on the directional bias. The office respectfully disagrees, as the modified flight plan is disclosed in block 212 and everything occurring in block 212 is based on previous block 210 which includes the determination of directional bias, as discussed above. The claim broadly uses the term “based on” and does not describe how directional bias information is used in the modification of a flight plan.
The arguments (p. 14) state that the limitations taught by Jones et al. are not based on the directional bias, however the office submits that the combination of Swearingen et al. and Jones et al. renders the limitations obvious, as Jones et al. modifies block 212 of Swearingen et al. which is based on the directional bias as determined in block 212. In this way, the new destination and landing are based on the directional bias in the combination of art, as presented in the rejection. Therefore, an updated grounds of rejection is made based on the previously relied upon prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a state estimator” configured to receive data and identify an actuation failure and determine a directional bias, In Claim 20,
(b) “a contingency manager” configured to determine a modified flight plan, in Claim 20,
(c) ”a mission executor” configured to control the aircraft, in Claim 20
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “estimator” or “manager” or “executor” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a), (b), and (c), specification ¶0031 states that the state estimator, contingency manager, and mission executor may be implemented as one or more processors such as CPUs (e.g., with one or more cores), GPUs, TPUs, microprocessors, and/or any suitable processors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent are narrower than, or otherwise read on or render obvious the claims of the instant application (particularly, the claims are rendered obvious based on a combination of Claim 13 of the issued patent with Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and/or 15 of the issued patent, and one of ordinary skill in the art would make such a combination with the motivation of improving safety by providing routing to preferred landing places). The table below shows the corresponding claims of the instant application and issued patent.
18/589,171(Instant Application)Claims: 2/27/2024
US 11,960,303 B2 Published (4/16/2024)
1
1, 13, 15
5
8, 13
10
2, 7, 13
11
1, 13, 15
15
8, 13
20
1, 13, 15
Claims 2, 6, 7, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 in view of Publication US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to determine the aircraft is not responding to command instructions.
However, Swearingen et al. teaches a technique in an aircraft (see [0022-0023]),
wherein to identify the actuation failure (see [0025] no at 206, proceed to 210, “detect an actuator 116-120 failure” [0020] flight control surfaces), the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to determine the aircraft is not responding to command instructions (see [0025] “command does not correspond to the actuator's position”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 to use the actuation failure determination technique as taught by Swearingen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further improving vehicle health and safety (see Swearingen et al., [0003-0007]).
Regarding Claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the received first data from the one or more sensors indicates that the flight control surface is not in an expected position.
However, Swearingen et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the received first data from the one or more sensors indicates that the flight control surface is not in an expected position (see [0025] “command does not correspond to the actuator's position”).
The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 and Swearingen et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to adjust usage of one or more additional flight control surfaces to compensate for the actuation failure.
However, Swearingen et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to adjust usage of one or more additional flight control surfaces to compensate for the actuation failure (see [0027] implement special commands for functional actuators).
The motivation to combine U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 and Swearingen et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claims 12, 16, and 17, the limitations have been addressed with respect to Claims 2, 6, and 7, above and the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 in view of Publication US2015/0021441A1 (Matsui).
Regarding Claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to identify an undesired or unplanned aircraft trajectory of the aircraft.
However, Matsui teaches a technique:
wherein actuation failure is associated with an undesired or unplanned aircraft trajectory of the aircraft (see [0003] actuator in un-commanded position or outputting un-commanded force cause airplane to deviate from a commanded path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the failure determination of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 to include comparison of trajectory as taught by Matsui, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the flexibility or reliability of the system to determine the actuator failure with other and/or additional techniques, and for various types of failures (see Matsui [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations have been addressed with respect to Claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 in view of Publication WO2012/145608A1 (Vos et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to restrict operation parameters of the aircraft relative to the first flight mode.
However, Vos et al. teaches a technique to handle actuation failure for an aircraft (see Claim 29, diagnosing damage or malfunction related to control surfaces of the aircraft),
wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to restrict operation parameters of the aircraft relative to the first flight mode (see Claims 29, 30, altering flight dynamic constraints in response, e.g. reducing flight envelope).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified flight of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 to include restricted operation parameters as taught by Vos et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving flight safety (see Vos et al., [002-003]).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations have been addressed with respect to Claim 3 above, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1,3 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 in view of Publication US2011/0066323A1 (Nishimura).
Regarding Claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to:
command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the first position, determine the flight control surface is not at the first position based on received second data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft;
responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first position, command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a second position different than the first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the second position, determine the flight control surface is not at the second position based on received third data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft;
and responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first or second positions,
determine the actuation failure of the actuator of a flight control surface.
However, Nishimura teaches a technique for a vehicle actuator (see [0011]), wherein identifying the actuation failure includes:
command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the first position, determine the flight control surface is not at the first position based on received second data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft;
responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first position, command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a second position different than the first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the second position, determine the flight control surface is not at the second position based on received third data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft;
and responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first or second positions,
determine the actuation failure of the actuator of a flight control surface.
(see [0006], Claims 1 and 2, fail determination unit determining mechanism has failed based on actuator driven to incorrect shift position, and determine failure based on shifting to last position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the identification of actuator failure of U.S. Patent No. 11,960,303 B2 to have an additional position command and sensing as taught by Nishimura with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving failure detection with precision and speed (see Nishimura [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations have been addressed with respect to Claim 9 above, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0105890A1 (Jones et al.) (IDS filed 4/1/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Swearingen et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising stored instructions that, when executed by a set of one or more processors, cause the set of one or more processors to (see [0022-0023] Figure 2):
while an aircraft is flying in a first flight mode (see [0024-0025] nominal flight blocks 202-208):
receive first data from one or more sensors of the aircraft (see [0025] block 206 monitoring input from sensors); and
based on the received first data from the one or more sensors, identify an actuation failure of an actuator of a flight control surface (see [0025] no at 206, proceed to 210, “detect an actuator 116-120 failure” [0020] flight control surfaces); and
subsequent to identifying the actuation failure of the actuator of the flight control surface,
control the aircraft to fly in a modified flight mode (see Figure 2, [0025-0027] all steps after detection of failure), wherein to control the aircraft to fly in the modified flight mode, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to:
determine a directional bias of flight of the aircraft caused by the actuation failure (see [0026] block 210 verify failure including detecting course change based on navigational sensors 106);
determine a modified flight plan based on the determined directional bias caused by the actuation failure (see [0027] block 212, flight control algorithms reconfigured to account for the actuator failure, based on block 210), and
control the aircraft to fly based on the modified flight plan and the directional bias (see [0027] commands implemented by flight computer based on reconfigured algorithms and previous block 210),
Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite:
the aircraft flying: to a destination according to a flight plan,
wherein to determine the modified flight plan, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to determine a modified destination different than the destination based on the directional bias;
wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the modified flight plan and the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to control the aircraft to land at the modified destination.
However, Jones et al. teaches a technique to handle conditions including actuator failure (see [0022] anomalous condition can be loss of control of a wing control surface), including:
the aircraft flying to a destination according to a flight plan (see Claim 1, cruising flight toward a predetermined destination),
wherein to determine the modified flight plan, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to determine a modified destination different than the destination based on the contingency (see Claims 8, 9, contingency response including travel to location different than a predetermined destination);
wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the modified flight plan and the contingency, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to control the aircraft to land at the modified destination (see Claims 8, 9, contingency response of landing the aircraft at a location different than a predetermined destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified flight plan of Swearingen et al. (which is based on the directional bias as determined part of block 210) to further include a contingency landing plan as taught by Jones et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving aircraft and passenger safety (see Jones et al., [0002-0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Swearingen et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to determine the aircraft is not responding to command instructions (see [0025] “command does not correspond to the actuator's position”).
Regarding Claim 5, Swearingen et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the received first data from the one or more sensors includes data from a surface position sensor (see [0025] vehicle sensors 108 (e.g., actuator position)).
Regarding Claim 6, Swearingen et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the received first data from the one or more sensors indicates that the flight control surface is not in an expected position (see [0025] “command does not correspond to the actuator's position”).
Regarding Claim 7, Swearingen et al. discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to adjust usage of one or more additional flight control surfaces to compensate for the actuation failure (see [0027] implement special commands for functional actuators to compensate for failed).
Regarding Claim 10, Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the modified flight plan includes at least one of:
rerouting the aircraft;
performing an expedited landing;
performing an emergency landing; or
deploying one or more safety systems.
However, Jones et al. teaches the technique as above, wherein the modified flight plan includes at least one of:
rerouting the aircraft (see Claims 8, 9, location different than a predetermined destination, or rerouting along different flight path);
performing an expedited landing;
performing an emergency landing (see Claims 8, 9, landing in response to anomaly (emergency)); or
deploying one or more safety systems (see Claims 8, 9, communicating the anomalous condition to a remote entity by way of wireless signals, the definition of deploying including to bring into action, utilize).
The motivation to combine Swearingen et al. and Jones et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, and 15-17, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1, 2, and 5-7, respectively. Claims 11, 12, and 15-17, pertain to a system corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claims 1, 2, and 5-7, respectively. Claims 11, 12, and 15-17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1, 2, and 5-7, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Swearingen et al. discloses a system for an aircraft (see Figure 1, [0020]), the system comprising:
actuators of the aircraft configured to control flight control surfaces of the aircraft (see [0020] actuators 116-120 for actuating and controlling the vehicle's flight control surfaces);
sensors of the aircraft configured to generate data corresponding to a state of the aircraft (see [0020] sensors 106, 108);
an execution section comprising:
a state estimator (see [0022-0023]) configured to:
receive first data from the sensors of the aircraft(see [0025] block 206 monitoring input from sensors) while the aircraft is flying (see [0024-0025] nominal flight blocks 202-208);
based on the received first data, identify an actuation failure of an actuator of the aircraft(see [0025] no at 206, proceed to 210, “detect an actuator 116-120 failure” [0020] flight control surfaces); and
subsequent to identifying the actuation failure of the actuator of the flight control surface, determine a directional bias of flight of the aircraft caused by the actuation failure(see [0026] block 210 verify failure including detecting course change); and
a planning section comprising:
a contingency manager (see [0022-0023]) configured to:
determine a modified flight plan based on the determined directional bias caused by the actuation failure(see [0027] block 212, flight control algorithms reconfigured to account for the actuator failure based on block 210),
wherein the execution section further comprises a mission executor (see [0022-0023]) configured to control the aircraft to fly based on the modified flight plan and the directional bias (see [0027] commands implemented by flight computer based on modified plan in block 212 and bias in block 210).
Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite:
wherein the modified flight plan comprises a modified destination, and
wherein the mission executor is further configured to control the aircraft to land at the modified destination.
However, Jones et al. teaches a technique to handle conditions including actuator failure (see [0022] anomalous condition can be loss of control of a wing control surface), including:
wherein the modified flight plan comprises a modified destination (see Claims 8, 9, contingency response including travel to location different than a predetermined destination), and
wherein the mission executor is further configured to control the aircraft to land at the modified destination (see Claims 8, 9, contingency response of landing the aircraft at a location different than a predetermined destination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified flight plan of Swearingen et al. (which is based on the directional bias as determined part of block 210) to further include a contingency plan as taught by Jones et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving aircraft and passenger safety (see Jones et al., [0002-0005]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0105890A1 (Jones et al.), further in view of Publication US2015/0021441A1 (Matsui).
Regarding Claim 3, Swearingen et al. discloses wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to identify an undesired or unplanned aircraft orientation (see [0025] compare aircraft's actual response as measured by navigation sensors (e.g. pitch, roll, yaw) with the expected response, [0074] divergence (unplanned) associated with failure).
Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to identify an undesired or unplanned aircraft trajectory of the aircraft.
However, Matsui teaches a technique:
wherein actuation failure is associated with an undesired or unplanned aircraft trajectory of the aircraft (see [0003] actuator in un-commanded position or outputting un-commanded force cause airplane to deviate from a commanded path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the comparison of aircraft response to expected response in Swearingen et al. to include comparison of trajectory as taught by Matsui, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the flexibility or reliability of the system to determine the actuator failure with other and/or additional techniques, and for various types of failures (see Matsui [0003]).
Regarding Claim 13, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 3. Claim 13 pertains to a system corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 3. Claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 3, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0105890A1 (Jones et al.), further in view of Publication WO2012/145608A1 (Vos et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the directional bias, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to restrict operation parameters of the aircraft relative to the first flight mode.
However, Vos et al. teaches a technique to handle actuation failure for an aircraft (see Claim 29, diagnosing damage or malfunction related to control surfaces of the aircraft),
wherein to control the aircraft to fly based on the failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to restrict operation parameters of the aircraft relative to the first flight mode (see Claims 29, 30, altering flight dynamic constraints in response, e.g. reducing flight envelope).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified flight of Swearingen et al. (based on the directional bias) to include restricted operation parameters as taught by Vos et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving flight safety (see Vos et al., [002-003]).
Regarding Claim 18, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 8. Claim 18 pertains to a system corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 8. Claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 8, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2010/0017049A1 (Swearingen et al.) in view of Publication US2009/0105890A1 (Jones et al.), further in view of Publication US2011/0066323A1 (Nishimura).
Regarding Claim 9, Swearingen et al. discloses wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to:
command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a first position (see [0025] command from flight computer); and
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the first position, determine the flight control surface is not at the first position based on received second data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft (see [0025] determine response from the actuator does not correspond).
Swearingen et al. does not explicitly recite the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein to identify the actuation failure, the storage medium further comprises stored instructions to:
responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first position, command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a second position different than the first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position the flight control surface at the second position, determine the flight control surface is not at the second position based on received third data from the one or more sensors of the aircraft;
and responsive to determining the flight control surface is not at the first or second positions,
determine the actuation failure of the actuator of a flight control surface.
However, Nishimura teaches a technique for a vehicle actuator (see [0011]), wherein identifying the actuation failure includes:
responsive to determining the actuator is not at the first position, command the actuator to position the flight control surface at a second position different than the first position;
subsequent to commanding the actuator to position at the second position, determine the actuator is not at the second position based on received third data from the one or more sensors;
and responsive to determining the actuator is not at the first or second positions,
determine the actuation failure of the actuator.
(see [0006], Claims 1 and 2, fail determination unit determining mechanism has failed based on actuator driven to incorrect shift position, and determine failure based on shifting to last position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the identification of actuator failure of Swearingen et al. to have an additional position command and sensing as taught by Nishimura with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving failure detection with precision and speed (see Nishimura [0004]).
Regarding Claim 19, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 9. Claim 19 pertains to a system corresponding to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 9. Claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 9, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights