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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 05/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 05/09/2024. Claims 1-18 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-18 are pending examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-10, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. US11990049B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is scope is minor between the claims being compared and the instant claims are covered by the claims of the reference.
Pending Application 18/659135
U.S. Patent No. US 11990049B2
Claim 1
Claim 10, Claim 20
The scope of the reference claims and instant claims overlap and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 2
Claim 16
The apparatus of claim 10 wherein the processor iteratively generates a plurality of sequences used to generate a plurality of projected trajectories.
Claim 3
Claim 10
The instant claim is an obvious variation of and is covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 4
Claim 10
The instant claim is an obvious variation of and is covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 5
Claim 10
The reference claim includes identical limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 6
Claim 10
The reference claim includes identical limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 7
Claim 10
The reference claim includes several identical limitations of the instant claim, and the remaining limitations are obvious variations of and are covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 8
Claim 1, Claim 19
The scope of the reference claims and instant claims overlap and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 9
Claim 7
The method of claim 1 wherein the processor iteratively generates a plurality of projected trajectories each having a plurality of sequences.
Claim 10
Claim 1
The instant claim is an obvious variation of and is covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 11
Claim 1
The instant claim is an obvious variation of and is covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 12
Claim 1
The reference claim includes identical limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 13
Claim 1
The reference claim includes identical limitations of the instant claim.
Claim 14
Claim 1
The reference claim includes several identical limitations of the instant claim, and the remaining limitations are obvious variations of and are covered by the reference claim and do not make the claims patentably indistinct.
Claim 15
Claim 10
The scope of the reference claims and instant claims overlap and do not make the claims patentably indistinct and include several limitations that are identical to or obvious variations of the limitations of the reference claim.
Claim 16
Claim 7
The method of claim 1 wherein the processor iteratively generates a plurality of projected trajectories each having a plurality of sequences.
Claim 17
Claim 8
The method of claim 1 wherein the processor iteratively generates a plurality of sequences, each sequence being calculated relative to a different predicted future state of the aircraft during an execution of a recovery sequence.
Claim 18
Claim 9
The method of claim 1 wherein a plurality of the predefined recovery mode segments are based on plural different types of hazards each modeled using common scheme.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Marty et al. (US 2009/0132103 A1) teaches a system and method for securing an aircraft flight plan that simulates in advance the extrapolated lateral and vertical trajectories corresponding to the evasive maneuvers to be carried out on the appearance of a warning, where the simulation relies on the creation of a “5-D” trajectory generated from the flight plan comprising the trajectory to be followed, the sampling pitch and passage setpoints at the sampled points including the speed of the passage, the position of the points and the time of passage at the points of the flight plan
Meunier et al. (US 2010/0042273 A1) teaches a system that accompanies the terrain alarms of TAWS type indicating to the pilot that they have passed the limit point of success of a standard vertical avoidance maneuver, indications of free-travel distances in azimuth sectors suited to a clearance maneuver and one or more recommended relief avoidance maneuvers both lateral and vertical, and the system is based on a priori knowledge of the trajectories corresponding to the standard vehicle terrain avoidance maneuvers and on the forecasting of the trajectory followed by an aircraft made on the basis of the characteristics and of the changes of the speed vector of the aircraft, where the various predetermined forms of the trajectory followed during a standard vertical avoidance maneuver or the climb capability data of the aircraft from which they devolve is stored in an onboard database and selected from parameter values such as the weight and/or the inertia of the aircraft delivered by the flight instruments, as well as other configuration parameters
Nikolajevic et al. (US 2016/0225269 A1) teaches a helicopter safety system that at any instant generates a three-dimensional envelope of fallback paths for the helicopter, the envelope being obtained by calculating a set of positions that can be reached by the helicopter during a predetermined flight duration, the computer having parameters previously set with data relating to the flight capabilities of the helicopter and including at least the capabilities of node-down and/or nose-up maneuvers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights