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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Arguments/Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received amendments to the claims and specification in addition to remarks dated 07 January 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 07 October 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding objections”, “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding specification objections (including the abstract), the examiner confirmed that the amendments made correct the noted deficiencies; therefore, all outstanding specification objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner confirmed that by way of amendment or cancellation that all claim objections have been addressed. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the examiner notes that by way of amendment or cancellation of the applicable claims, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been addressed. All outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the applicant has positively claimed particular structure; as such, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim set. Applicant argues on page [9] of the remarks file that the prior art of note does not disclose/teach the limitation of providing rationale for the instruction. The examiner performed a search for this concept and located art which read upon the claim in reasonable obvious combination. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, may be found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 07 January 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending and rejected as noted below. Claim 1 is an independent claim. Claims 16-20 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Regarding "avionics system", the examiner notes that this phrase is generally understood (including with the below plain meaning) to be any form of electrical system used in aircrafts. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting this phrase broadly to include any electrical system related to the aircraft.
PNG
media_image1.png
152
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding "ground station", the examiner notes that paragraph [0032] gives examples including ATC and an airport operation center, but it is not particularly limited. The examiner is considering any remote system to read upon this claim language. Dependent claim 12, for instance, further limits the ground station to the aforementioned examples.
Regarding claim 4 limitation "activating the interactive emergency landing assistance…", the examiner notes that this "activation" step is responsive to generating an emergency landing assistance prompt, which is responsive to receipt of the pilot incapacitation indication (the preceding limitation). Since the first step of the "system" in parent claim 1 is the receipt of an incapacitation indication, the examiner is considering "activation" to merely describe a continuation of the process previously described. Put plainly, the system is already "activated" by way of generating an emergency landing assistance prompt, so how could an already active system be activated? Rather, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to describe a verification prior to continuation of the activated system.
Regarding "open world computer", such as that found in claim 15, the examiner notes that specification paragraph 0030 provides examples (such as an EFB, a laptop, etc.) and explicitly states that "The OWC 204 is a portable computing device". Therefore, the examiner is interpreting an "open world computer" to include any portable computing device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Interactive Emergency Landing Assistance System” – claims 1-5, 8, 11, 14-15
“Pilot State Monitoring System” – claim 2
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The emergency landing assistance system is described as a subsystem of a physical component such as the OWC or as an integrated component of the aircraft (paragraph [0011-0012, 0030, 0034], figure [2-3]) such as through an EFB, laptop, or alternative computer (Paragraph [0030]). As the particular structure of the emergency landing assistance system is not particularly limited, the examiner is considering any form or combination of software and/or hardware (or equivalents thereof) performing the described tasks to be an "emergency landing assistance system".
Regarding "pilot state monitoring system", the examiner notes that [0038] provides a basis for understanding what may be included in this phrase, however the terms are exemplary. The examiner will interpret this terminology to include any combination of hardware and/or software that monitors the pilot or provides indication/signal of a pilot state.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 mistakenly kept the first "; and" after the "receiving the first landing instruction" limitation despite adding another limitation.
Claim 11 mistakenly capitalized the word "The" in the limitation "The aircraft further comprises…".
Claim 15 mistakenly omitted the amendment of "method" to "aircraft", which creates a lack of antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Estabrook et al. (US 2008/0039988 A1; hereinafter Estabrook) in view of Hammack et al. (US 9,032,319 B1; date of patent 12 May 2015, hereinafter Hammack) in further view of McQuillan et al. (US 2016/0245666 A1; published 25 Aug 2016, hereinafter McQuillan).
Regarding independent claim 1 (method): Estabrook discloses An aircraft configured to provide interactive emergency landing assistance comprising: (Abstract, Paragraph [0004, 0032, 0039], Claim [17], Estabrook discloses an avionics system for an aircraft that provides emergency landing assistance and is incorporated (at least partially) in an aircraft)
at least one avionics system; and (Paragraph [0023] and Figure [1], Estabrook discloses that the system comprises an avionics system (at least piece 10))
a controller communicatively coupled to the at least one avionics system and including an interactive emergency landing assistance system, the controller being configured to incorporate programming instructions for: (Paragraph [0023-0025] and Figure [1], Estabrook discloses that the system comprises at least a controller/control device configured to implement the steps)
receiving a pilot incapacitation indication at the interactive emergency landing assistance system; (Paragraph [0039-0040], Estabrook discloses receiving an input representative of an incapacitated or partially incapacitated pilot)
receiving aircraft state data from the at least one avionics system at the interactive emergency landing assistance system; (Paragraph [0034, 0040-0043], Estabrook discloses that the system receives aircraft state data such as heading, speed, altitude, etc. from the avionics system that is integrated/communicatively coupled)
transmitting an emergency landing assistance request and the aircraft state data from the interactive emergency landing assistance system to a ground station; (Paragraph [0010, 0043-0044], Estabrook discloses transmitting emergency assistance request to nearby tower controllers (ground stations))
receiving a first landing instruction from the ground station at the interactive emergency landing assistance system, the first landing instruction being based on the aircraft state data; […] (Paragraph [0013, 0048], Estabrook discloses receiving instructions from the ground station)
[…] generating, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, instruction details associated with the implementation of the first landing instruction based on the determination […] (Paragraph [0049-0050], Estabrook discloses generating control instructions)
receiving updated aircraft state data from the at least one avionics system at the interactive emergency landing assistance system following the implementation of the first landing instruction; (Paragraph [0016, 0051], Estabrook discloses receiving updated state data (such as being in position for another maneuver))
transmitting the updated aircraft state data from the interactive emergency landing assistance system to the ground station; and (Paragraph [0016, 0048-0051], Estabrook discloses that when the aircraft is in position for final approach, the ground station may perform an action (thus, the ground station is transmitted details such as the aircraft being in position for final approach))
receiving a second landing instruction from the ground station at the interactive emergency landing assistance system, the second landing instruction being based on the updated aircraft state data. (Paragraph [0016, 0048-0051], Estabrook discloses that the ground station may give an instruction such as deactivating autopilot (a second instruction) based on the plane being in position (updated aircraft state data) for final approach)
Regarding determining, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, whether a first pre-defined period of time has elapsed following receipt of the first landing instruction without implementation of the first landing instruction;, the examiner notes that a non-zero amount of time between receiving an instruction and a human implementing an instruction is a given, as the human (especially in a high stress situation, Paragraph [0004] of Estabrook) needs time to think and process.
However, Hammack, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems, teaches determining, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, whether a first pre-defined period of time has elapsed following receipt of the first landing instruction without implementation of the first landing instruction; (Column [16] Lines [57-63] and Claim [2], Hammack teaches that a display instruction detail may be presented to an operator after a predetermined wait time)
Estabrook and Hammack are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Estabrook to explicitly include a wait time as taught by Hammack for the benefit of assisting the readability of a display and/or allow the user to process an instruction. The examiner notes (as described above) that a non-zero amount of time between receiving an instruction and a human implementing an instruction is a given, as the human (especially in a high stress situation, Paragraph [0004] of Estabrook) needs time to think and process, thus leading to an implicit teaching within Estabrook to have some form of processing time. However, the explicit teachings of Hammack are shown as a design choice outlining the benefit (rationale to combine) of preventing overload of instructions to an operator, helping the operator to focus on tasks at hand (Column [18] Lines [22-26] of Hammack).
Regarding wherein the instruction details comprise a reason for implementing the first landing instruction;, Estabrook does not explicitly disclose outputting rationale for directions provided.
However, McQuillan, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems, teaches wherein the instruction details comprise a reason for implementing the first landing instruction; (Paragraph [0149-0151] and Figure [15A-15C], McQuillan teaches providing both an instruction and a rationale for the instruction (Example instruction “Please level the wings..” Rationale: “It appears you’re turning…”; Example instruction “It appears you’re climbing/descending” Rationale: “Please adjust the pitch…”))
Estabrook and McQuillan are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Estabrook to explicitly include providing an output for rationale as taught by McQuillan in order to provide basic understanding to an operator and increase the confidence of the operator in order to safely land (McQuillan, Paragraph [0052]) and present information in a manner that is easy to read and provides clear indication (McQuillan, Paragraph [0149]).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein receiving the pilot incapacitation indication at the interactive emergency landing assistance system comprises receiving the pilot incapacitation indication from a pilot state monitoring system. (Paragraph [0007, 0032, 0040], Estabrook discloses receiving an indication of an incapacitation of a pilot)
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein receiving the pilot incapacitation indication at the interactive emergency landing assistance system comprises receiving a pilot incapacitation indication via a first user input. (Paragraph [0007, 0032, 0040], Estabrook discloses receiving an indication of an incapacitation of a pilot from a button/input device 40 selected by a user)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the controller is configured to incorporate further programming instructions for: generating an emergency landing assistance prompt, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, responsive to receipt of the pilot incapacitation indication for display on a display device onboard the aircraft; and activating the interactive emergency landing assistance system responsive to activation of the emergency landing assistance prompt via a second user input. (Paragraph [0043-0045, 0049], Estabrook discloses that the system prompts the user to perform a mayday message, changing a destination of the aircraft, and outlining received instructions (all of which may be considered generating a prompt) and perform further processing actions (activation) following performance of the aforementioned steps)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein upon activation of the interactive emergency landing assistance system, the controller is configured to incorporate further programming instructions for: determining, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, an aircraft status of the aircraft; and (Paragraph [0010, 0035, 0043], Estabrook discloses receiving aircraft data (speed, altitude, heading, etc.) and aircraft type)
generating, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, radio tuning instructions to tune a radio of the aircraft to the ground station, the ground station being associated with a nearest airport having a landing runway that is compatible with the aircraft status. (Paragraph [0010, 0035, 0043-0045, 0047], Estabrook discloses generating instructions for a user to tune the radio to communicate with a ground station and generate a list of nearby airports, including ones that are closest (compatible with the aircraft status))
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses the aircraft further comprises a speaker onboard the aircraft; receiving the first landing instruction from the ground station comprises receiving an audio first landing instruction for transmission via the speaker onboard the aircraft; (Paragraph [0013, 0027, 0048], Estabrook discloses radio communication between the tower controller and the person piloting. Per paragraph [0027], “A separate speaker and microphone may be positioned somewhere between the stations 24, 26 to permit the pilot, co-pilot, and/or passengers to receive and transmit radio communications without their headsets.” Thus, discusses audio communication for transmission of landing instructions)
receiving the second landing instruction from the ground station comprises receiving an audio second landing instruction for transmission via the speaker; and transmitting the first and second landing instructions via the speaker. (Paragraph [0013, 0027, 0048, 0051], Estabrook discloses radio communication between the tower controller and the person piloting. Per paragraph [0027], “A separate speaker and microphone may be positioned somewhere between the stations 24, 26 to permit the pilot, co-pilot, and/or passengers to receive and transmit radio communications without their headsets.” Thus, discusses audio communication for transmission of landing instructions, such as the second instruction (instructing the pilot to deactivate autopilot, for example))
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses the aircraft further comprises a display device; receiving the first landing instruction from the ground station comprises receiving a graphical first landing instruction for display on a display device onboard the aircraft; and receiving the second landing instruction from the ground station comprises receiving a graphical second landing instruction for display on the display device; and displaying the graphical first and second landing instructions on the display device. (Paragraph [0014, 0049], Estabrook discloses providing on a display, photos or drawings of the instruction to allow a pilot to locate and follow instructions. A plurality of instructions are disclosed (constituting a first and second))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the controller is configured to incorporate further programming instructions for: […] generating, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, instruction details associated with the implementation of the first graphical landing instruction for display on the display device based on the determination. (Paragraph [0014, 0049], Estabrook discloses providing on a display, photos or drawings of the instruction to allow a pilot to locate and follow instructions. A plurality of instructions are disclosed (constituting a first and second))
Regarding a timer for monitoring a cursor that has been hovering, Estabrook does not explicitly disclose this.
However, Hammack, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems, teaches […] determining, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, whether a cursor has been hovering over the first graphical landing instruction for a second pre-defined period of time; and generating […] (Column [16] Lines [57-63] and Claim [2], Hammack teaches that a display instruction detail may be presented to an operator after a predetermined wait time proximate to the cursor location (cursor hovering over a location))
Estabrook and Hammack are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft operator interface systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Estabrook to explicitly include a wait time as taught by Hammack for the benefit of assisting the readability of a display and/or allow the user to process an instruction. The examiner notes that a non-zero amount of time between receiving an instruction and a human implementing an instruction is a given, as the human (especially in a high stress situation, Paragraph [0004] of Estabrook) needs time to think and process, thus leading to an implicit teaching within Estabrook to have some form of processing time. However, the explicit teachings of Hammack are shown as a design choice outlining the benefit (rationale to combine) of preventing overload of instructions to an operator, helping the operator to focus on tasks at hand (Column [18] Lines [22-26] of Hammack). The choice to implement a wait time feature on a particular display element is that of a design choice with the rationale to improve the operator interface.
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the graphical first landing instruction comprises a graphical representation of a current state of at least one of an aircraft guidance panel, an aircraft throttle control, an aircraft flap control, an aircraft gear control, an aircraft trim control, an aircraft air/fuel mixture control, and an aircraft spoiler control and a graphical representation of a first desired state of the at least one of the aircraft guidance panel, the aircraft throttle control, the aircraft flap control, the aircraft gear control, the aircraft trim control, the aircraft air/fuel mixture control, and the aircraft spoiler control. (Paragraph [0049], Estabrook discloses graphical display of instructions of “virtually any aircraft control along with instructions on how to operate those controls, such as a mixture control, a landing gear lever, a flaps lever, an aileron control or trim, an elevator control or trim, and/or a rudder control or trim.”)
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the graphical second landing instruction comprises a graphical representation of an updated state of the at least one of the aircraft guidance panel, the aircraft throttle control, the aircraft flap control, the aircraft gear control, the aircraft trim control, the aircraft air/fuel mixture control, and the aircraft spoiler control and a graphical representation of a second desired state of the at least one of the aircraft guidance panel, the aircraft throttle control, the aircraft flap control, the aircraft gear control, the aircraft trim control, the aircraft air/fuel mixture control, and the aircraft spoiler control. (Paragraph [0016, 0049, 0051], Estabrook discloses graphical display of instructions of “virtually any aircraft control along with instructions on how to operate those controls, such as a mixture control, a landing gear lever, a flaps lever, an aileron control or trim, an elevator control or trim, and/or a rudder control or trim.” Further, when the aircraft is in position for final approach, the instructions may include reduction in power/speed, performance of a flare (a maneuver that changes control surface position/geometry), etc., thus including the second instruction at the least)
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein: the aircraft further comprises an output device; and (Paragraph [0010, 0013-0014, 0043, 0048-0049], Estabrook discloses providing a display, speaker, among other output devices)
the controller is configured to incorporate further programming instructions for generating, by the interactive emergency landing assistance system, user guidance phraseology associated with the emergency landing assistance request for transmission to the output device onboard the aircraft to enable a user to employ the user guidance phraseology to generate the emergency landing assistance request for transmission to the ground station; and the output device generates the user guidance phraseology as an output. (Paragraph [0010, 0043], Estabrook discloses that the system tunes the radio and provides a script/prompt teaching the user how to address the tower with phraseology such as “mayday” or “emergency”)
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the ground station comprises at least one of air traffic control (ATC) and an airport operation center (AOC) service provider. (Paragraph [0029, 0039, 0043], Estabrook discloses that the ground station is a tower controller/air traffic controller (ATC))
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein the first landing instruction comprises a first sequence of landing instruction steps associated with implementation of an aircraft control function. (Paragraph [0048], Estabrook discloses that a series of substeps (sequence) is included in the first instruction such as a change to altitude, a change to airspeed, and a change to heading)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein a series of landing instructions associated with implementation of an emergency landing of the aircraft are received from the ground station at the interactive emergency landing assistance system, the series of landing instructions including the first and second landing instructions. (Paragraph [0048, 0051], Estabrook discloses that a series of substeps (sequence) is included in the first instruction such as a change to altitude, a change to airspeed, and a change to heading and a series of substeps (sequence) associated with the final approach (second instruction))
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Estabrook, Hammack, and McQuillan. Estabrook further discloses wherein an open world computer (OWC) comprises the interactive emergency landing assistance system. (Paragraph [0005-0006, 0023-0025], Estabrook discloses that the system may be a combination of hardware and/or software and may be included in an avionics system or a different type of computer (all considered an OWC))
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658