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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18, 19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt et al. (2022/0139233) in view of Kim et al. (2017/0345318).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system comprising:
an aircraft (“…aircraft 10…”, see P[0024] and FIG. 1);
a communication device (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038] and “…a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition)”, see P[0045]); and
a control unit in communication with the communication device (“The method 100 can begin with the FMS 8 receiving a first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11. For example, the first update 21 can be manually entered into the FMS (e.g., by a pilot) or provided by external source (e.g. ACARS, EFB, ATC, etc.), at 102. In various non-limiting aspects, the first update 21 can be received pre-flight, during flight, during predetermined portions of a flight, periodically during flight, or triggered an event, or as otherwise determined necessary (e.g., by the pilot or ATC). For example, a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition). In aspects, the first update 21 to the first flight plan 11 can include the second set of flight parameters 25”, see P[0045]), wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive, via the communication device, an issue signal including information regarding an issue in relation to a flight plan for an aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038] and “As described in more detail herein, a modification, amendment, change, or first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11 can comprise a second set of flight parameters 25 and can be provided to the FMS 8, and stored the memory 26”, see P[0034], where it is implicit that a signal is generated when an update is manually provided using the Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS, and see “…a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition)”, see P[0045]),
prior to updating the flight plan, compare the issue with data from one or more flight information sources to automatically validate the issue…(“For example, in an aspect, the safety validation at 111 can determine, based on the comparison of the received second set of flight parameters 25…”, see P[0055] and FIG. 3 and “…the determination whether any of the changes or updates to the current flight plan presents a risk to safe flight can include comparing the flight parameters (e.g., vertical and horizontal trajectories) of the flight plan, or updates to the flight plan, to terrain data”, see P[0040] and “At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4);
in response to the issue being automatically validated, automatically update the flight plan based on the issue to provide an updated flight plan (“At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4); and
operate the aircraft based on the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038] and “…the aircraft 10 can then be operated according to the second flight plan 22”, see P[0056]).
Schwindt et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
wherein the one or more flight information sources includes a historical database, wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times.
However, Kim et al. (2017/0345318) teaches one or more flight information sources includes a historical database, wherein to automatically validate an issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times, which encompasses a single input and storage of the single input (Kim et al.; “The memory 122 may be pre-loaded with one or more databases including historical data…the historical data may include flight records, recorded data parameters, observations, and the like from previous flights of the same and/or similar aircraft to the aircraft on which the control system 100 is disposed. The monitoring controller 114 is configured to access the historical data in the memory 122 to compare current information received with the historical data for pattern matching, identification of trends, and the like, which is used to determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft. The memory 122 also may be used to store data that is created during the flight of the aircraft, such as an activity log of the aircraft and/or a record of detected abnormal operating conditions and responsive actions taken to remedy the corresponding abnormal operating conditions”, see P[0031] and P[0035], also see “…one or more of the responsive actions may call for performance of a designated system test to determine an extent, cause, or identity of the abnormal operating condition, modification or adjustment of one or more flight settings (e.g., elevation, speed, flight path, etc.)”, see P[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwindt et al. with the teachings of Kim et al., and wherein the one or more flight information sources includes a historical database, wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times, as rendered obvious by Kim et al., in order to “determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft” (Kim et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft comprises a user interface including a display in communication with an input device, wherein the issue is input by a pilot of the aircraft via the user interface aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038]).
Examiner’s Note: Claim 4 does not require any step of tracking an aircraft, and the limitation “configured to track the aircraft” does not require any specific configuration, as no specific configuration is claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 1, wherein the one or more flight information sources comprise one or more of:
a tracking sub-system configured to track the aircraft (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]);
a weather sub-system configured to provide past, current, and predicted weather; or
aircraft data sources configured to provide information about the aircraft
.
Regarding Claim 5, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim [[4]]1, wherein the one or more flight information sources comprise a tracking sub-system (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]), a weather sub-system, aircraft data sources, and a historical database.
Regarding Claim 6, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 5, wherein the tracking sub-system is an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) tracking sub-system (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]).
Regarding Claim 7 and the claimed system of claim 5, wherein the aircraft data sources provide tail-specific information regarding the aircraft, these limitations are contingent limitations that are only required if “aircraft data sources” are selected as the “one or more flight information sources” of parent Claim 4, and because the “aircraft data sources” are not selected as the “one or more flight information sources” of parent Claim 4 for this rejection (the “tracking sub-system” is selected instead), these contingent limitations of Claim 5 are then not required by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 9, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft is automatically operated according to the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 10, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 9, wherein the control unit is further configured to automatically operate the aircraft according to the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 11, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method comprising:
communicatively coupling a control unit (“The method 100 can begin with the FMS 8 receiving a first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11. For example, the first update 21 can be manually entered into the FMS (e.g., by a pilot) or provided by external source (e.g. ACARS, EFB, ATC, etc.), at 102. In various non-limiting aspects, the first update 21 can be received pre-flight, during flight, during predetermined portions of a flight, periodically during flight, or triggered an event, or as otherwise determined necessary (e.g., by the pilot or ATC). For example, a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition). In aspects, the first update 21 to the first flight plan 11 can include the second set of flight parameters 25”, see P[0045]) with a communication device (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038]);
receiving, by the control unit via the communication device, an issue signal including information regarding an issue in relation to a flight plan for an aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038] and “As described in more detail herein, a modification, amendment, change, or first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11 can comprise a second set of flight parameters 25 and can be provided to the FMS 8, and stored the memory 26”, see P[0034], where it is implicit that a signal is generated when an update is manually provided using the Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS, and see “…a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition)”, see P[0045]);
prior to updating the flight plan, comparing, by the control unit, the issue with data from one or more flight information sources to automatically validate the issue (“For example, in an aspect, the safety validation at 111 can determine, based on the comparison of the received second set of flight parameters 25…”, see P[0055] and FIG. 3 and “…the determination whether any of the changes or updates to the current flight plan presents a risk to safe flight can include comparing the flight parameters (e.g., vertical and horizontal trajectories) of the flight plan, or updates to the flight plan, to terrain data”, see P[0040] and “At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4);
…
in response to the issue being automatically validated, automatically updating the flight plan based on the issue to provide an updated flight plan (“At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4); and
operating the aircraft according to the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038] and “…the aircraft 10 can then be operated according to the second flight plan 22”, see P[0056]).
Schwindt et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in a historical database a predetermined number of times.
However, Kim et al. (2017/0345318) teaches to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in a historical database a predetermined number of times, which encompasses a single input and storage of the single input (Kim et al.; “The memory 122 may be pre-loaded with one or more databases including historical data…the historical data may include flight records, recorded data parameters, observations, and the like from previous flights of the same and/or similar aircraft to the aircraft on which the control system 100 is disposed. The monitoring controller 114 is configured to access the historical data in the memory 122 to compare current information received with the historical data for pattern matching, identification of trends, and the like, which is used to determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft. The memory 122 also may be used to store data that is created during the flight of the aircraft, such as an activity log of the aircraft and/or a record of detected abnormal operating conditions and responsive actions taken to remedy the corresponding abnormal operating conditions”, see P[0031] and P[0035], also see “…one or more of the responsive actions may call for performance of a designated system test to determine an extent, cause, or identity of the abnormal operating condition, modification or adjustment of one or more flight settings (e.g., elevation, speed, flight path, etc.)”, see P[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwindt et al. with the teachings of Kim et al., and wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in a historical database a predetermined number of times, as rendered obvious by Kim et al., in order to “determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft” (Kim et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 11, further comprising inputting, via a user interface of the aircraft, the issue by a pilot of the aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038]).
Examiner’s Note: Claim 14 does not require any step of tracking an aircraft, and the limitation “configured to track the aircraft” does not require any specific configuration, as no specific configuration is claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 11, wherein the one or more flight information sources comprise one or more of:
a tracking sub-system configured to track the aircraft (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]);
a weather sub-system configured to provide past, current, and predicted weather;
aircraft data sources configured to provide information about the aircraft; or
[[a]]the historical database that is configured to provide data regarding issues reported from one or both of the aircraft or other aircraft.
Regarding Claim 15, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim [[14]] 11, wherein the one or more flight information sources comprise a tracking sub-system (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]), a weather sub-system, a historical database.
Regarding Claim 16, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 15, wherein the tracking sub-system is an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) tracking sub-system, and wherein the aircraft data sources provide tail-specific information regarding the aircraft (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]).
Regarding Claim 18, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 11, further comprising automatically operating the aircraft according to the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 19, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 18, wherein said automatically operating is performed by the control unit (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038]).
Regarding Claim 21, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to automatically operate controls to automatically control the aircraft according the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038] and “…the aircraft 10 can then be operated according to the second flight plan 22”, see P[0056]).
Regarding Claim 22, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 11, further comprising automatically operating controls to automatically control the aircraft according the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038] and “…the aircraft 10 can then be operated according to the second flight plan 22”, see P[0056]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt et al. (2022/0139233) in view of Kim et al. (2017/0345318) further in view of Boozarjomehri et al. (2019/0147748).
Regarding Claim 8, Schwindt et al. does not expressly recite the claimed system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
However, Boozarjomehri et al. (2019/0147748) teaches wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Boozarjomehri et al.; “The flight prediction module 113 includes a machine learning model 114”, see P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwindt et al. with the teachings of Boozarjomehri et al., and wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system, as rendered obvious by Boozarjomehri et al., so that “one or more of a flight plan characteristic or an aircraft loading characteristic is modified” (Boozarjomehri et al.; see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Schwindt et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 11, wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
However, Boozarjomehri et al. (2019/0147748) teaches wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Boozarjomehri et al.; “The flight prediction module 113 includes a machine learning model 114”, see P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwindt et al. with the teachings of Boozarjomehri et al., and wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system, as rendered obvious by Boozarjomehri et al., so that “one or more of a flight plan characteristic or an aircraft loading characteristic is modified” (Boozarjomehri et al.; see Abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt et al. (2022/0139233) in view of Boozarjomehri et al. (2019/0147748) further in view of LaCivita et al. (2021/0183253), further in view of Kim et al. (2017/0345318).
Regarding Claim 20, Schwindt et al. teaches the claimed system comprising:
an aircraft including a user interface including a display in communication with an input device, wherein the user interface is configured to be operated by a pilot of the aircraft to input an issue in relation to a flight plan for the aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038] and FIG. 1);
a communication device (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038]); and
a control unit in communication with the communication device…(“The method 100 can begin with the FMS 8 receiving a first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11. For example, the first update 21 can be manually entered into the FMS (e.g., by a pilot) or provided by external source (e.g. ACARS, EFB, ATC, etc.), at 102. In various non-limiting aspects, the first update 21 can be received pre-flight, during flight, during predetermined portions of a flight, periodically during flight, or triggered an event, or as otherwise determined necessary (e.g., by the pilot or ATC). For example, a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition). In aspects, the first update 21 to the first flight plan 11 can include the second set of flight parameters 25”, see P[0045]), and wherein the control unit is configured to:
receive, via the communication device, an issue signal including information regarding the issue in relation to the flight plan for the aircraft (“…the updates to the flight plan can be manually entered (e.g., by a pilot on a Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS…”, see P[0038] and “As described in more detail herein, a modification, amendment, change, or first update 21 to at least a portion of the first flight plan 11 can comprise a second set of flight parameters 25 and can be provided to the FMS 8, and stored the memory 26”, see P[0034], where it is implicit that a signal is generated when an update is manually provided using the Multi-Function Control Display Unit (MCDU) or Multi-purpose Control Display of the FMS, and see “…a first update 21 can be provided to the FMS 8 periodically or based on triggers (e.g. a threshold when a first flight parameter is predicted or determined to be inaccurate or otherwise undesirable due to an updated forecast and changed atmospheric condition)”, see P[0045]),
prior to updating the flight plan, compare the issue with data from flight information sources to automatically validate the issue…(“For example, in an aspect, the safety validation at 111 can determine, based on the comparison of the received second set of flight parameters 25…”, see P[0055] and FIG. 3 and “…the determination whether any of the changes or updates to the current flight plan presents a risk to safe flight can include comparing the flight parameters (e.g., vertical and horizontal trajectories) of the flight plan, or updates to the flight plan, to terrain data”, see P[0040] and “At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4), wherein the flight information sources comprise a tracking sub-system configured to track the aircraft (“If the FMS, TAWS, EFB or other avionics device identifies or determines any risk to safe flight, (e.g. terrain proximity)…”, see P[0040]); a weather sub-system configured to provide…current…weather (“The terrain data 55 can include one or more of, but are not limited to, data associated with a terrain feature, an obstacle, a wind shear, a weather pattern, or a combination thereof”, see P[0049]); aircraft data sources configured to provide information about the aircraft (“A communication link 24 can be communicably coupled to the computer 13 or other processors of the aircraft to transfer information to and from the aircraft 10. It is contemplated that the communication link 24 can be a wireless communication link and can be any variety of communication mechanisms capable of wirelessly linking with other systems and devices and can include, but are not limited to…Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)…”, see P[0028], also see P[0029]);…;
in response to the issue being automatically validated, automatically update the flight plan based on the issue to provide an updated flight plan (“At 114, if the second set of flight parameters 25 is determined to be safe, that is, to not present a risk to safe flight, then the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the received first update 21 to define a second flight plan 22 at 120”, see P[0056], also see “In the event the second update 33 to the first flight plan 11 is determined to not to present a risk to safe flight, the first flight plan 11 can be automatically updated according to the second update 33 to define the second flight plan 22, via the FMS 8, at 216”, see P[0067] and FIG. 4);
communicate the updated flight plan to a pilot (“Additionally, a second signal 62, such as an indication or safety validation indication, can further be generated, via the FMS 8, and provided to the display 60 in order to indicate to one or more of the flight crew, the pilot, or ATC 32 that the first flight plan 11 has been updated to define the second flight plan 22, at 218”, see P[0061]); and
operate the aircraft according to the updated flight plan (“The computer 13 can, among other things, automate the tasks of piloting and tracking the flight plan of the aircraft 10”, see P[0026] and “During flight, the current or first flight plan for the aircraft can be executed under the direction of the FMS (either Flight Director indications to pilot or Autopilot command)”, see P[0038] and “…the aircraft 10 can then be operated according to the second flight plan 22”, see P[0056]).
Schwindt et al. does not expressly recite the claimed
wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system
and the bolded portions of the claimed
a weather sub-system configured to provide past, current, and predicted weather
and the claimed
and a historical database configured to provide data regarding issues reported from one or both of the aircraft or other aircraft; wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times.
However, Boozarjomehri et al. (2019/0147748) teaches wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Boozarjomehri et al.; “The flight prediction module 113 includes a machine learning model 114”, see P[0021]).
Furthermore, LaCivita et al. (2021/0183253) teaches a weather sub-system configured to provide past, current, and predicted weather (LaCivita et al.; “…weather forecast data for a selected time period, flight schedule data for the selected time period, historical weather data for a prior time frame, and historical flight schedule data…”, see P[0007]).
Furthermore Kim et al. (2017/0345318) teaches a historical database configured to provide data regarding issues reported from one or both of the aircraft or other aircraft, and to automatically validate an issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times (Kim et al.; “The memory 122 may be pre-loaded with one or more databases including historical data…the historical data may include flight records, recorded data parameters, observations, and the like from previous flights of the same and/or similar aircraft to the aircraft on which the control system 100 is disposed. The monitoring controller 114 is configured to access the historical data in the memory 122 to compare current information received with the historical data for pattern matching, identification of trends, and the like, which is used to determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft. The memory 122 also may be used to store data that is created during the flight of the aircraft, such as an activity log of the aircraft and/or a record of detected abnormal operating conditions and responsive actions taken to remedy the corresponding abnormal operating conditions”, see P[0031] and P[0035], also see “…one or more of the responsive actions may call for performance of a designated system test to determine an extent, cause, or identity of the abnormal operating condition, modification or adjustment of one or more flight settings (e.g., elevation, speed, flight path, etc.)”, see P[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schwindt et al. with the teachings of Boozarjomehri et al., LaCivita et al. and Kim et al., and wherein the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system, and a weather sub-system configured to provide past, current, and predicted weather, and a historical database configured to provide data regarding issues reported from one or both of the aircraft or other aircraft; wherein to automatically validate the issue is in response to a determination that the issue was previously input and stored in the historical database a predetermined number of times, as rendered obvious by Boozarjomehri et al., LaCivita et al. and Kim et al., so that “one or more of a flight plan characteristic or an aircraft loading characteristic is modified” (Boozarjomehri et al.; see Abstract), and in order to “determine one or more possible flight strategies for an aircraft” (LaCivita et al.; see Abstract), and in order to “determine an abnormal operating condition of the aircraft” (Kim et al.; see Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights