DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 01/08/2026. Claims 6, 12-13, and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/12/2025 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding objections to specification and claim 13:
Applicant has argued that the objections to the specification and claim 13 are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 101:
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(b) and 101 have been overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet et al. (US 2018/0182250 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bonnet, in view of Darbois et al. (US 2015/0323933 A1), hereinafter referred to as Darbois.
Regarding claim 1:
Bonnet discloses the following limitations:
“A system for filtering and presenting notifications received by an aircraft, the system comprising: a processor; a display device operably connected to the processor; a communication device operably connected to the processor; and computer-readable memory operably connected to the processor, the computer-readable memory encoded with instructions.” (Bonnet ¶ 77: “An FMS system 210 is generally positioned in a cockpit, and has a human-machine interface comprising input means that are for example formed by a keyboard, and display means that are for example formed by a display screen, or else simply a tactile display screen.” Additionally, Bonnet ¶ 133:“By way of example of hardware architecture suitable for implementing the invention, a device may include a communication bus to which a central processing unit or microprocessor (CPU) are connected, which processor may be ‘multicore’ or ‘manycore’; a read-only memory (ROM) being able to contain the programs necessary for implementing the invention; a random access memory (RAM) or cache memory containing registers suitable for recording variables and parameters that are created and modified during the execution of the aforementioned programs; and an I/O (‘input/output’) or communication interface suitable for transmitting and for receiving data.”)
“that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive, via the communication device, one or more broadcasted notifications.” (Bonnet ¶ 23: “a method, implemented by a computer, for managing a notice to airmen, comprising steps consisting in: receiving at least one notice to airmen…”)
“filter, via a notification filtering module, the one or more broadcasted notifications based upon applicability to a present flight plan to generate one or more applicable notifications.” (Bonnet ¶ 24: “The content of the messages is obtained by decoding the NOTAM (i.e. the structure and the fields of the NOTAM are known) and analysed in numerous ways. Some messages are selected, i.e. sorted beforehand, for example depending on their degree of relevance in relation to the flight plan, which serves as a sorting criterion.”)
“filter, via the notification filtering module, the one or more applicable notifications based upon one or more filtering criteria to assign a criticality to each of the one or more applicable notifications.” (Bonnet ¶ 11: “analysis and the processing of the portion of the messages in formal or coded language, performed digitally, enables sorting criteria to be applied (for example by type of threat, by severity, depending on the type of plane, etc.). In some embodiments, this processing of information enables the generation of lists of NOTAM messages that are sorted in order of relevance or of importance (for example, runway closed/very important; taxiway closed/little importance; crane present/very low importance).”)
“wherein the one or more filtering criteria include time-based filters, altitude-based filters, GPS availability, runway length, fuel availability, weather reporting limitations, obstructions, or flight phase filters based upon the present flight plan.” (Bonnet ¶ 44: “In one embodiment, the flight context also triggers some/certain comparisons. The flight context of the aircraft includes in particular the climbing, descent, cruising, take-off, landing etc. phases. The flight context may be used to filter/select the relevant NOTAM messages, i.e. those having to be taken into account for the flight plan of the aircraft (e.g. current, potential, revised).” Also, Bonnet ¶ 96: “targeted alerts may be manipulated (for example an item of information indicating a shortened runway), i.e. information not relating to an unavailability in the strict sense, but that modulates or specifies elements of information that are significant for the flight plan or the mission (for example diversion to an airport comprising this shortened runway).” This at least teaches the filtering criteria including “runway length” and “flight phase filters based upon the present flight plan” as claimed.)
“prioritize, via the notification filtering module, the one or more applicable notifications based on the criticality to the present flight plan.” (Bonnet ¶ 11: “Advantageously, the analysis and the processing of the portion of the messages in formal or coded language, performed digitally, enables sorting criteria to be applied (for example by type of threat, by severity, depending on the type of plane, etc.). In some embodiments, this processing of information enables the generation of lists of NOTAM messages that are sorted in order of relevance or of importance (for example, runway closed/very important; taxiway closed/little importance; crane present/very low importance).”)
“generate … via an alternate flight plan module, one or more alternate flight plans.” (Bonnet ¶ 108: “a set of alternative flight plans may be determined in a combinatorial manner, and then the intersections with the set of messages (in particular NOTAMs) may be determined, i.e. the opportunities (advantages) or the impossibilities or disadvantages associated with each of the potential flight plans, which plans may be sorted or ranked or graded (and then possibly presented to the pilot).”)
“and display, via the display device, the one or more applicable notifications based upon the criticality of each of the one or more applicable notifications.” (Bonnet ¶ 10: “the pilot may be reminded of the content of relevant messages at the appropriate moment (contextualized information).” Additionally, Bonnet ¶ 77 discloses a display for outputting various flight information, and Bonnet ¶ 128 discloses that “In one embodiment, the NOTAM messages are indexed and are searchable (for example by the pilot).”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the limitation “wherein the one or more filtering criteria include time-based filters, altitude-based filters, GPS availability, runway length, fuel availability, weather reporting limitations, obstructions, or flight phase filters based upon the present flight plan” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “runway length” and “flight phase filters based upon the present flight plan” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Bonnet does not explicitly disclose that the alternate flight plans are generated “in real-time” and “in response to, and compliant with, all applicable notifications restricting the present flight plan.” However, Darbois does teach these limitations. (Darbois ¶ 11: “at any moment in the course of the flight, the pilot may get proposals for alternative trajectories, e.g. acceptable routes (which comply with the known constraints regarding the weather, ATC, etc), arising from the FMS and/or approved by him.” The alternative trajectories complying with “the known constraints” reads on the alternate flight plans being compliant with “all applicable notifications restricting the present flight plan” as claimed. Further, Darbois ¶ 121: “The triggering of the determination of alternative routes can also stem from a combination of pilot commands and conditions defined (statically or dynamically) by the onboard computer. For example, the receipt of outside events (such as ATC directives and/or weather alerts and/or various zones or other alarms), can also trigger the computation of alternative trajectories.” The determination of alternate routes being triggered by dynamically received messages teaches the alternate flight plans being generated “in real-time” as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bonnet by dynamically generating the alternate flight plans to be compliant with any known constraints as taught by Darbois with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Darbois ¶¶ 58-59 teach that this modification can help contribute to a system that provides economical gains by optimizing an aircraft’s flight cost related to fuel consumption, flight time, and engine wear.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” and Bonnet further teaches “wherein the one or more broadcasted notifications are one or more published notifications published by an external aviation publisher.” (Bonnet ¶¶ 19 and 23 disclose receiving NOTAM messages, where “NOTAM notices are text messages published by the air navigation control authorities or systems.”)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 2,” and Bonnet further teaches “wherein the one or more broadcasted notifications are one or more Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs).” (Bonnet ¶¶ 23-24 disclose receiving notices to airmen, where “The expression ‘notice to airmen’ denotes a NOTAM message.”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 3,” and Bonnet further teaches “wherein the one or more applicable notifications are a subset of NOTAMs within the broadcasted notifications that are relevant to the present flight plan.” (Bonnet ¶ 24: “The content of the messages is obtained by decoding the NOTAM (i.e. the structure and the fields of the NOTAM are known) and analysed in numerous ways. Some messages are selected, i.e. sorted beforehand, for example depending on their degree of relevance in relation to the flight plan, which serves as a sorting criterion.”)
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” and Bonnet further teaches “wherein the one or more alternate flight plans include any planned route to be taken by the aircraft including brake release, motion on the ground, air travel, and parking brake application at a destination.” (Bonnet ¶¶ 42-44: “the event for triggering a comparison and/or notification step is dependent on the flight context and/or on a revision of the current flight plan of the aircraft. … The flight context of the aircraft includes in particular the climbing, descent, cruising, take-off, landing etc. phases. The flight context may be used to filter/select the relevant NOTAM messages, i.e. those having to be taken into account for the flight plan of the aircraft (e.g. current, potential, revised).”)
Regarding claims 16-17:
Claims 16-17 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 and 3 above, respectively.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Darbois as applied to claims 3 and 17 above, and further in view of Waaler et al. (US 2024/0144832 A1), hereinafter referred to as Waaler.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 3,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the one or more NOTAMs are received, via the communication device, in a standard abbreviated format and wherein the computer-readable memory is further encoded with instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to parse the one or more NOTAMs to convert the standard abbreviated format to a computer-readable format and/or a plain language format.” However, Waaler does teach this limitation. (Waaler ¶ 47: “a set of NOTAMs are acquired. In embodiments, each NOTAM may be received via a signal.” Further, Waaler ¶ 60: “terms of NOTAM text may be converted from an abbreviated form to an expanded (non-abbreviated) form. For example, ‘TWR’ may be converted to ‘tower.’” This at least teaches that the system converts the standard abbreviated format to a “plain language format” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 4, consistent with the instant specification, causing “the system to parse the one or more NOTAMs to convert the standard abbreviated format to a computer-readable format and/or a plain language format” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the term “and/or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “plain language format” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by allowing the system to parse the NOTAMs to convert abbreviations into a plain language format as taught by Waaler with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Waaler ¶ 80 teaches that this modification can help to “significantly improve understandability and speed of reading NOTAMs, thereby increasing safety of a flight, efficiency in keeping track of NOTAMs, and remaining attention capacity for other tasks.”
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 4 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Darbois as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Bailey et al. (US 2016/0093219 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, and Kneuper et al. (US 2017/0229026 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kneuper.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” and Bonnet further teaches “wherein the one or more alternate flight plans include indicators of an estimated time of arrival, a total flight time, … a measurement of fuel remaining.” (Bonnet ¶ 77 discloses to display “Predictions (PRED) 216, for constructing an optimized vertical profile on the lateral and vertical trajectory and giving estimations of distance, time, altitude, velocity, fuel and wind in particular at each point, upon each change of piloting parameter and at the destination, which estimations will be displayed to the crew.” Also, Bonnet ¶ 109: “With a given message being able to modify past and/or future messages, decision trees or ‘systemic’ analyses may be determined. For example, a precise choice of navigation may lead to situations that are radically different, some of which are highly unfavourable (accrued risks, increase of fuel consumption, dwindling of subsequent flight options, etc.). Suitable analyses or simulations may disclose the criticality associated with this choice, analyses or simulations being based in particular on the information extracted from the notices to airmen.”)
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois does not specifically teach that “the one or more alternate flight plans include indicators of … a landing weight, and a maximum hold time.” However, Bailey does teach this limitation. (Bailey ¶ 26: “flight history data (including pilot notes) is used to generate new or updated flight plan and aircraft performance predictions such as fuel loads, fuel burn rates, cost index, flight times, hold times, arrival times, flight path updates, step climbs and other performance related predictions and their probabilities.” Further, Bailey ¶ 67: “Aircraft predictions can include aircraft state data predictions associated with a number of points in time based on forecast, derived and real time weather, flight plan, weight of aircraft, aircraft configuration, and/or any other suitable information. Aircraft predictions can include a number of trajectories that are calculated from flight path information provided from either an aircraft or a ground source using flight path restrictions, such as altitude, speed, and/or time, and planned flight events, such as gear extension.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by using indicators of aircraft weight and hold times associated with alternate flight plans as taught by Bailey with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Bailey ¶ 127 teaches that “By predicting performance (e.g., hold time, arrival time, fuel burn, passengers making connections, etc.) and their probabilities of occurrence based on real time conditions and flight history for a given route or time, pilots need not access and analyze vast amounts of flight information for the benefit of improving operational performance.”
The combination of Bonnet, Darbois, and Bailey does not specifically teach that “the one or more alternate flight plans include indicators of … a distance remaining.” However, Kneuper does teach this limitation. (Kneuper ¶ 64 discloses that “As alternate flight paths are considered, distance indicator 414 may display corresponding alternate distances and duration indicator 415 may display corresponding alternate times. … For flight planning activities, distance indicator 414 and duration indicator 415 conveniently display the remaining estimated flight path distance and duration, respectively.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet, Darbois, and Bailey by using an indicator of remaining distance associated with the alternate flight paths as taught by Kneuper with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kneuper ¶ 3 teaches that this can help with improving the pilot’s situational awareness by reducing heads-down time.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 8 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Darbois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunter (US 2023/0118254 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more alternate flight plans are generated in real time to avoid airspace to which the one or more applicable notifications restricting the present flight plan apply.” However, Hunter does teach this limitation. (Hunter ¶ 38: “The controlling agency may not authorize aircraft operations in restricted areas if the RA is still active and is yet to be released to the controlling agency. Dynamic planning of flight trajectories is possible when real-time status updates for restricted areas become available to the controlling agency.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by allowing the alternate flight plan(s) to be generated in real time to avoid restricted areas as taught by Hunter with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Hunter ¶¶ 37-38 teach that the flight restrictions change dynamically and therefore require the system to maintain current knowledge of the flight restrictions and dynamically account for them during flight planning.
Claims 10-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Darbois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goossen et al. (US 2014/0018979 A1), hereinafter referred to as Goossen.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more alternate flight plans are displayed via the display device as a map overlay.” However, Goossen does teach this limitation. (Goossen ¶ 142: “A user may view the overlaid information and interact with user interface 62 (FIG. 6) to provide input that indicates one or more modifications to a flight location (e.g., a flight area or flight path) based on the information, e.g., to avoid populated areas, restricted spaces, weather fronts, and the like.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet by displaying flight path adjustment information as a map overlay as taught by Goossen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Goossen ¶ 23 teaches that the overlaid information can help to define a flight path. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that overlaying alternate flight plans on the map display would improve convenience and eliminate the need for the pilot to switch between screens to simultaneously consider both the map information and the flight path information.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Bonnet, Darbois, and Goossen teaches “The system of claim 10,” and Goossen also teaches “wherein a restricted flight area is displayed via the display device as a map overlay based upon the at least one of the one or more applicable notifications restricting the present flight plan.” (Goossen ¶ 83 discloses that a flight area can be restricted based on a NOTAM, and Goossen ¶ 131 discloses “a display that includes the virtual boundary overlaying map 32, as well as overlaying other information, such as restricted airspaces.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by displaying a restricted flight area as a map overlay as taught by Goossen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Goossen ¶ 23 teaches that the overlaid information can help to define a flight path. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that overlaying the restricted flight area on the map display would improve convenience and eliminate the need for the pilot to switch between screens to simultaneously consider both the map information and the flight area restriction.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more applicable notifications are displayed as an overlay on a map.” However, Goossen does teach this limitation. (Goossen ¶ 83 and FIG. 2 reproduced below disclose the display of NOTAM 38 overlaid on a map.)
PNG
media_image1.png
606
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by displaying the applicable notifications as a map overlay as taught by Goossen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Goossen ¶ 23 teaches that the overlaid information can help with defining a flight path. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that overlaying the applicable notification(s) on the map display would improve convenience and eliminate the need for the pilot to switch between screens to simultaneously consider both the map information and the notification(s).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnet in view of Darbois as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shamasundar et al. (US 2016/0347471 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shamasundar.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Bonnet and Darbois teaches “The system of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the one or more applicable notifications are displayed with an assigned color based upon the criticality of each of the one or more applicable notifications.” However, Shamasundar does teach this limitation. (Shamasundar ¶ 23: “a pilot can see that the modified uplink message 202B is affected by a flight information message 106, specifically a NOTAM, without having to look at the modified uplink message 202B and a flight information message 106 separately and make that determination for himself Display of the NOTAM can be configured to a specific color that indicates the criticality of the affected message.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system that is disclosed by the combination of Bonnet and Darbois by displaying notifications with specific colors that indicate the criticality of the notifications as taught by Shamasundar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Shamasundar ¶ 23 teaches that with this modification, “the amount of heads down time for the pilot and the pilot workload is reduced.”
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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662