DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 04/08/2026. Claim 8 has been canceled, and new claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 04/08/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding double patenting rejections:
Applicant has argued that the double patenting rejections have been overcome by the filed amendment incorporating the subject matter of claim 8 into the independent claims. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claims should not be rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 101 since the step of “receiving, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight” could not be performed by a human being. The examiner notes that this step was not interpreted as a mental step, but was instead interpreted as an additional element that amounted to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant has further argued that the claim rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 101 have been overcome by the filed claim amendment requiring that the first aircraft is operated to avoid one or more locations of turbulence as indicated on the profile map. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these rejections accordingly.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 1-6, 13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra et al. (US 2020/0035109 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramachandra, in view of Jacobson et al. (US 2020/0013299 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jacobson.
Regarding claim 1:
Ramachandra discloses the following limitations:
“A method comprising: receiving, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of a respective aircraft of the multiple aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft and caused by atmospheric airflow.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 21-22: “receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route. … In an additional or alternative exemplary embodiment, the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information directly or indirectly from one or more sensor modules 13 onboard the aircraft, for example a measured windspeed magnitude that is different to the predicted windspeed magnitude at the aircraft's present location. … The receiver module 12, the memory module 11 and the one or more sensor modules 13 are each operably connected to a processor module 14.” Further, Ramachandra ¶ 31 discloses that the “altitude of the aircraft” can be graphed along with tail wind speeds and distance into the flight route, which implies that the altitude is part of the received flight plan information.)
“generating a profile map via the controller, the profile map plotting at least a first flight path of a first aircraft on a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the airflow conditions included in at least some of the airflow reports, the profile map having a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance, wherein generating the profile map comprises differentiating a first visual characteristic of the graphic indicia for different airflow reports.” (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “the predicted tail wind speeds for the entire predicted flight are presented to the pilot on a vertical situation display (VSD) in the form of a graph 31 of altitude of the aircraft vs. distance of the aircraft into the predicted flight route. The instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information which satisfy the search query criteria of a tail wind being greater than 60 knots for a duration of greater than 30 minutes are highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished from the remainder of the predicted tail wind speeds shown on the graph 31.” This at least teaches the profile map including “a horizontal axis representing … distance” as claimed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
510
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“displaying the profile map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 31-33: “An exemplary returned results display 30 is shown in FIG. 3… By highlighting the instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information that satisfy the search query criteria on the returned results display 30, the man-machine interface between the pilot and the aircraft display system 10 is improved such that the pilot can more quickly and more easily visually interpret the returned results.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the “horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “one of” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “horizontal axis representing … distance” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
The following limitations are not explicitly disclosed by Ramachandra, but are taught by Jacobson:
“wherein generating the profile map comprises differentiating a first visual characteristic of the graphic indicia for different airflow reports based on a turbulence level of the airflow condition.” (Jacobson ¶ 79: “The turbulence map 200 may indicate varying severities of air turbulence on the turbulence map 200, such as by different configurations and/or sizes of the shapes 204, color coding (for example, red may indicate locations of severe turbulence), and/or the like.”)
“and operating the first aircraft to avoid one or more locations of turbulence as indicated on the profile map.” (Jacobson ¶ 78: “The turbulence modeling control unit 130 generates the turbulence map 200 based on the locations of the air turbulence, as determined by the air turbulence control unit 128. As such, the aircraft 102 may avoid the areas of air turbulence, such as by flying above the air turbulence.”)
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 method of Ramachandra by differentiating between different levels of severity on the profile map and operating the aircraft to avoid certain locations of turbulence as taught by Jacobson with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that flying through severe turbulence could be dangerous and cause discomfort for the passengers.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra also teaches “wherein generating the profile map comprises positioning the graphic indicia on the profile map at locations along the vertical and horizontal axes that correspond to the geographic locations and the altitudes in the airflow reports.” (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3 disclose instances 32, 33 being positioned along the axes to correspond to their distance into the flight route and altitude.)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra further teaches “wherein receiving the airflow reports comprises automatically receiving the airflow reports on a periodic basis as additional airflow reports are generated.” (Ramachandra ¶ 21: “the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route.” The use of ADS-B reports implies that the reports are received on a periodic basis as claimed.)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra further teaches “wherein receiving the airflow reports comprises the controller receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.” (Ramachandra ¶ 21: “The aircraft display system 10 further includes a receiver module 12. … the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route.”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson additionally teaches “wherein the airflow condition describes a level of a force event experienced by the respective aircraft that generated the airflow report, wherein the level is one of a plurality of different turbulence levels of increasing severity.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence. The normalization of motion signals received from the various aircraft 102 allows for an objective determination of air turbulence, and allows the severity of air turbulence to be categorized for different types of aircraft 102.”)
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 method of Ramachandra by using categories of increasing severity to describe the turbulence level as taught by Jacobson, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the categories of turbulence severity) for another (i.e., the categories of tailwind severity of Ramachandra ¶ 27) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the categories of tailwind severity for the categories of turbulence severity as taught by Jacobson to achieve the predictable result of providing an objective measurement range to quantify reported turbulence.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 5,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein one of the different turbulence levels is smooth.” (Jacobson ¶ 63: “air turbulence control unit 128 may also determine a severity of detected air turbulence for the aircraft 102 at current positions and altitudes based on predetermined thresholds. For example, if the motion data is less than a low threshold (such as detected motion that less than a +/−0.01% deviation from a predetermined baseline altitude, heading, air speed, or the like), then the air turbulence control unit 128 determines that the aircraft 102 is not experiencing air turbulence at its current position and altitude.” This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 27 of the instant specification, which explains that a turbulence level can be considered smooth if it is laminar and generally free of turbulence.)
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 method of Ramachandra by categorizing some values of turbulence as smooth as taught by Jacobson, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., a smooth category of turbulence severity) for another (i.e., the category of little to no tailwind severity disclosed by Ramachandra ¶ 29) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the category of low tailwind severity for the category of smooth turbulence as taught by Jacobson to achieve the predictable result of providing an objective measurement range to quantify reported turbulence.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson additionally teaches “wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, and displaying the profile map comprises concurrently displaying both the first and second flight paths on the profile map.” (Jacobson ¶ 71: “The air turbulence control unit 128 may compare the current flight plans with the candidate flight plans in relation to the turbulence map generated by the turbulence modeling control unit 130 and output various alternative routes that avoid locations of turbulence. In this manner, the air turbulence control unit 128 may provide flight plan options having a reduced amount of air turbulence. Pilots may opt to divert to one of the different flight plan options as determined and presented by the air turbulence control unit 128.”)
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 method of Ramachandra by displaying a selection of multiple candidate flight plans as taught by Jacobson with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jacobson ¶ 71 teaches that this can help to select a flight plan that avoids turbulence or that has a reduced amount of turbulence. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that flight plans with little to no turbulence would help with improving flight safety and providing increased comfort for passengers.
Regarding claim 15:
Ramachandra discloses “A turbulence notification system comprising: a controller including one or more processors… and a display device communicatively connected to the controller.” (Ramachandra ¶ 24: “The aircraft display system 10 further includes a display module 16 operably connected to the processor module 14.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are taught by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The turbulence notification system of claim 15,” and Ramachandra further teaches the system “comprising an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports and communicate the airflow reports to the controller.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 21-22: “the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route. … The receiver module 12, the memory module 11 and the one or more sensor modules 13 are each operably connected to a processor module 14.”)
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The turbulence notification system of claim 15,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the profile map by plotting the first flight path and at least a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path.” (Jacobson ¶ 71: “The air turbulence control unit 128 may compare the current flight plans with the candidate flight plans in relation to the turbulence map generated by the turbulence modeling control unit 130 and output various alternative routes that avoid locations of turbulence. In this manner, the air turbulence control unit 128 may provide flight plan options having a reduced amount of air turbulence. Pilots may opt to divert to one of the different flight plan options as determined and presented by the air turbulence control unit 128.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 78: “The turbulence modeling control unit 130 generates the turbulence map 200 based on the locations of the air turbulence, as determined by the air turbulence control unit 128. As such, the aircraft 102 may avoid the areas of air turbulence, such as by flying above the air turbulence.”)
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 method of Ramachandra by displaying a selection of multiple candidate flight plans with different altitudes as taught by Jacobson with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jacobson ¶ 71 teaches that this can help to select a flight plan that avoids turbulence or that has a reduced amount of turbulence. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that flight plans with little to no turbulence would help with improving flight safety and providing increased comfort for passengers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hampel (US 2018/0268715 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the method “further comprising filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route, wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.” However, Hampel does teach these limitations. (Hampel ¶¶ 73-76: “the visual representation may include a plurality of indicators superimposed on a map according to the respective locations at which the turbulence data was obtained or recorded. … the visual representation may be altered responsive to user selection, for example, to only show the indicators of a specified altitude range, within a specified radius or flight route, or within a specified period of time.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by filtering the data to only plot indicia corresponding to reports within a threshold proximity of the flight route as taught by Hampel with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that airflow reports that are far from the flight route are not relevant to the user and could distract the user from noticing the reports that are relevant.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 7 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gurusamy et al. (US 2018/0238996 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gurusamy.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein generating the profile map comprises differentiating a second visual characteristic of the graphic indicia for different airflow reports based on a recency level of the airflow report.” However, Gurusamy does teach this limitation. (Gurusamy ¶ 54: “process 800 also presents the graphical elements using varying intensities of color associated with an age of data represented by the graphical elements (step 810). In some embodiments, graphical elements associated with new or more recent data are shown using bolder colors, brighter colors, and with increased intensity of color, while the graphical elements associated with older data may be shown using an increased level of transparency, translucency, or other types of less-vibrant colors.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by differentiating certain indicia based on their recency as taught by Gurusamy with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the most recent data is most relevant since weather and turbulence patterns are constantly changing.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Ramachandra, Jacobson, and Gurusamy teaches “The method of claim 9,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein the first visual characteristic is color.” (Jacobson ¶ 79: “The turbulence map 200 may indicate varying severities of air turbulence on the turbulence map 200, such as by different configurations and/or sizes of the shapes 204, color coding (for example, red may indicate locations of severe turbulence), and/or 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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Gurusamy by using color coding to represent different turbulence severities as taught by Jacobson, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the color coding of Jacobson) for another (i.e., a display of “highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished” information disclosed by Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the highlighted display information of Ramachandra with display data that is shown in different colors to achieve the predictable result of visually identifying different turbulence severities in an easily identifiable way.
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson does not specifically teach that “the second visual characteristic is intensity of the graphic indicia.” However, Gurusamy does teach this limitation. (Gurusamy ¶ 54: “process 800 also presents the graphical elements using varying intensities of color associated with an age of data represented by the graphical elements.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by differentiating graphical indicia by using different intensities based on their recency as taught by Gurusamy with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the most recent data is most relevant since weather and turbulence patterns are constantly changing, and that displaying certain indicia with a higher intensity would make them more noticeable to the display operator.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 2020/0334994 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Jensen does teach these limitations:
“further comprising: identifying at least a first airflow report of the airflow reports that is more proximate to a current location and a current altitude of the first aircraft than other airflow reports of the airflow reports.” (Jensen ¶ 102: “Time correlated positions of the reporting aircraft are then ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ representing the positions of the reporting aircraft at t0, t−1, and t−2 respectively. For purposes of demonstration, it is stipulated that the positions of the three aircraft 910c, 920b and 930a, corresponding to times t−2 , t−1, and t0 respectively, are all within one mile radius of position X represented by circle 940a. Further let it be stipulated that for purposes of mapping data, data points within a one mile radius of position X (940a) can be considered collocated at position X. Thus, 910c represents the oldest sensed value at position X and 930a represents the most current value.” Also, Jensen ¶ 89: “the pilot may employ an altitude filter for example only displaying data for aircraft within 10,000 feet of his current altitude.”)
“generating a text box that provides the airflow condition of the at least first airflow report; and displaying the text box on the display device.” (Jensen ¶ 90: “if the pilot places the display cursor 766 on or immediately adjacent an aircraft reporting point, e.g. 710a. a pop-up window 760 may be opened to provide a textual display of the reported data. As see in the figure, the displayed textual data may include reporting aircraft type 761, reporting altitude 762, reported turbulence intensity (TB) 763, reported turbulence duration (TD) 764, and reporting time 765. Each of these items is important when evaluating the relevance of the report to the own-ship aircraft.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by showing a text display of airflow data that is proximate to the aircraft location and altitude as taught by Jensen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jensen ¶ 90 teaches that this allows relevant data such as reported turbulence intensity and duration to be shown, and that “Each of these items is important when evaluating the relevance of the report to the own-ship aircraft.”
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of McCann et al. (US 2016/0356922 A1), hereinafter referred to as McCann.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, McCann does teach these limitations:
“further comprising: determining, via the controller, a first turbulence score for the first flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a first subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the first flight path; determining, via the controller, a second turbulence score for a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a second subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the second flight path.” (McCann ¶ 136: “Embodiments of the DSEE provide an aircraft turbulence nowcast for a geospatial aviation volume by determining non-convective turbulence values for a geospatial aviation volume associated with an at least one aircraft and determining convective turbulence forecast values for the geospatial aviation volume (e.g., for 4-d spatial/temporal gridpoints within the volume). … The DSEE can then transmit the aircraft turbulence nowcast to a control system associated with the at least one aircraft (e.g., aircraft navigation systems, ground control systems, etc.), provide an alert based thereon, and/or determine/provide a flight plan deviation or alternate route (for which a turbulence nowcast may be determined and the compared to the nowcast for th initial route) for the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence.”)
“wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path.” (McCann ¶ 36: “The DSEE can also provide enhanced granularity for all flight-level altitudes in order to identify the optimal path for avoiding hazards, and/or choosing the least dangerous hazard to encounter.”)
“selecting, via the controller, one of the first flight path or the second flight path as a recommended flight path for the first aircraft based on a comparison of the first and second turbulence scores; and generating a flight path recommendation for display on the display device, the flight path recommendation indicating the recommended flight path.” (McCann ¶ 136: “DSEE can then transmit the aircraft turbulence nowcast to a control system associated with the at least one aircraft (e.g., aircraft navigation systems, ground control systems, etc.), provide an alert based thereon, and/or determine/provide a flight plan deviation or alternate route (for which a turbulence nowcast may be determined and the compared to the nowcast for th initial route) for the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence.” Additionally, McCann ¶ 68: “The DSEE may provide weather/aviation decision support (e.g., via graphical displays) and/or provide alerts/triggers.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by recommending a candidate route based on a comparison of turbulence values for each route as taught by McCann with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because McCann ¶ 136 teaches that this can help the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that avoiding or minimizing turbulence would help to improve flight safety.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 12 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwajima et al. (JP 2024-018055 A), hereinafter referred to as Kuwajima.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, and displaying the profile map comprises displaying the first flight path but not the second flight path during a first time period and displaying the second flight path but not the first flight path during a second time period.” However, Kuwajima does teach these limitations. (Kuwajima ¶ 44: “The route derivation unit 50 may use a route model to sequentially present candidate routes, and the calculation unit 30 may apply each of the presented routes to a risk model to perform a risk assessment for each route. The route recommendation unit 55 may then comprehensively determine the calculated risk assessment result and the flight distance to determine one or more recommended routes.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by displaying candidate routes sequentially as taught by Kuwajima with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that displaying the candidate routes at the same time could result in overlapping information that leads to confusion, whereas displaying the candidate routes sequentially would allow for a less cluttered display that could help to improve clarity.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Jacobson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shams (US 2017/0334576 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach the method “further comprising automatically selecting the first flight path for the first aircraft to follow to avoid the one or more locations of turbulence as indicated on the profile map.” However, Shams does teach this limitation. (Shams ¶ 20: “the processor may transmit a signal to trigger an automated navigation system to generate an updated flight plan such that the aircraft may be re-routed to avoid the detected air turbulence.”)
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 method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Jacobson by automatically selecting an updated flight plan to avoid detected air turbulence as is taught by Shams with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that this could improve safety and efficiency by eliminating reliance on the pilot to select the best path.
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
Prosecution Insights