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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2306898, filed on 06/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 03/10/2026. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1-4, 10 and 11 are amended;
No claims are cancelled or added.
Therefore, Claims 1-11 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn. [The examiner notes that the phrase “facilitating management operation for an emergency landing” is acceptable. It would be preferable, however, instead of the word facilitating, to use a word indicating more directly the control of the aircraft.]
Regarding the claim language interpretation of “acquisition module” and “determination module” in Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the applicant was mute on the issue. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the applicant’s arguments have been considered and found persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A.] “Independent method claim 1, as amended, includes the feature of "determining ... the emergency runway ... to be used for an emergency landing, based on ... a data correlation structure prepared in advance of the flight linking the data representative of wind characteristics at the current altitude with a probability of compatibility for each runway in service corresponding to the set of preselected landing runways of the emergency airport, the runway in service having the highest probability of compatibility being chosen as the emergency runway", As explained hereinbelow, this feature is neither shown nor suggested by Sellman and Curto, taken alone or in combination. Regarding Sellman, the choice of the runway to be used is based on an in-flight assessment of several scenarios. Even though Sellman indicates the need to simplify the model used to evaluate scenarios and associated flight plans, nevertheless a person skilled in the art, upon reading Sellman, would not have been motivated to replace evaluating scenarios with use of a predefined correlation structure associating wind at altitude/runway in service. In fact, this would run counter to the technical teaching of Sellman, whose contribution is precisely this step of evaluating different scenarios. ";
[B.] “Claim 1 has been further amended to include the feature of a data correlation structure prepared in advance of the flight linking data representative of wind characteristics at a current altitude with a probability of compatibility for each runway in service…"... data structures available to on-board electronic device 2, which serve in particular to link characteristics of the wind at altitude with characteristics of the wind on the ground"…"... an identification operation 0211, within the structure of correlation data TR, of at least one record representing data representative of the ground wind characteristics EdCs, each EdC record including a compatibility probability". Claim 1 has been further amended to include the feature that the runway in service having the highest probability of compatibility is chosen as the emergency runway…"... the compatible runway consists in directly implementing, by the device 2, a selection of a runway with the highest probability of compatibility". Claim 1 has been further amended to include the feature of facilitating landing operations for an emergency landing on the chosen runway in service…"On-board electronic device 2 makes it possible ... to facilitate management operations for the emergency landing".”;
[C.] “Claim 10 has been further amended to include the feature of a data correlation structure prepared in advance of the flight linking the data representative of wind characteristics at the current altitude with a probability of compatibility for each runway in service corresponding to the set a set of preselected landing runways of the emergency airport…Claim 10 has been further amended to include the feature that the runway in service having the highest probability of compatibility is chosen as the emergency runway. This feature is supported in the original specification at least by paragraphs [0039]. Claim 10 has been further amended to include the feature that the determination module facilitates management operations for an emergency landing on the chosen runway.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over Sellmann et al. (US 11,724,820 B2, henceforth Sellmann).
Regarding Claim 1, Sellmann teaches the limitations: a method for determining an emergency runway to be used by an aircraft for an emergency landing when leaving an initial flight plan to proceed to an emergency airport preselected prior to the flight {“(a) Pre-flight data collection for database information (such as information on specific airports) suitable for the planned flight path; (b) Proactive scenario evaluation for the simulation of different alternative landing scenarios, which may include any or all of: (i) pre-flight simulations”, Col. 1, Lns. 30-35}, the emergency airport defining a set of preselected landing runways {“Landing scenarios and simulated landing paths may be pre-calculated for discrete locations along the original flight path…table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, each preselected landing runway corresponding to two runways in service depending on an orientation in which the preselected landing runway is to be taken for landing {“aircraft flight path model 307 includes variables or parameters, and suitable equations, to predict a slight path and flight vectors based on such factors as…(viii) Airport geo-coordinate, elevation, and runway orientation (which will vary for different nearby airports and different runways)”, Col. 16, Lns. 29-42}, the method being implemented in flight, by an electronic device on-board the aircraft {“the aircraft 100 may include one or more general aircraft controllers 130, together referred to as the avionics suite 130, which may be digital controllers 130 with microprocessor(s) and memory. The aircraft engines 160 may include one or more engine controllers 110 which may be Full Authority Digital Controllers 110 (FADECS).”, Col. 5, Lns. 43-49}, the method comprising at least one iteration {“(M1) Iterate through each candidate airports for emergency landing”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59} of: obtaining data representative of current wind characteristics, at a current altitude of the aircraft from at least one on-board equipment of the aircraft {“real-time local weather data, including temperatures, wind speeds, and storm data, which may be obtained from both on-board aircraft sensors 346”, Col. 10, Lns. 4-6}; determining, for the emergency airport, the emergency runway among the runways in service of the emergency airport to be used for an emergency landing {“the LOAM 305 may require various static input data 315 which may include, for example and without limitation: airport data—locations and capabilities of nearby airports; airport layouts—runway layouts and facility layouts for the nearby airports; terrain data for the geographic area(s) in proximity to the aircraft and in proximity to the nearby airports, including potential landing sites other than airport runways”, Col. 9, Lns. 48-57}, based on the data representative of current wind characteristics at the current altitude of the aircraft {Col. 10, Lns. 4-6, above; also, “In step 820, the LOAM 305 obtains the aircraft's current exterior flight environment 504.1, which may include for example and without limitation: wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and temperature.”, Col. 21, Lns. 8-12; and 504.1, Fig. 5}, the set of preselected runways {Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, and a data correlation structure of prepared in advance of the flight linking the data representative of wind characteristics at the current altitude {Col. 10, Lns. 4-6} with a probability of compatibility for each runway {“pre-computer table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14} in service on-the-ground corresponding to the set of preselected landing runways of the emergency airport {see table 780 in Fig. 7}, the runway in service having the highest probability of compatibility being chosen as the emergency runway; and facilitating landing operations for an emergency landing on the chosen runway in service {“the LDA 300 may determine that the highest confidence landing option(s) require that the aircraft landing gear be lowered immediately, without delay”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59}.
Regarding Claim 2, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: wherein said determining comprises: acquiring, based on the data representative of wind characteristics at the current altitude {Col. 10, Lns. 4-6} and based on the structure of correlation data {“table of emergency landing solutions”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14, such as table 780 in Fig. 7}, a record of data {317, Fig. 3: “Database Management System (DBMS) 317—In one embodiment of the present system and method, static input data 315 (airport, runway, terrain, aircraft model) may be stored in databases maintained within the LDA 300 itself”, Col. 10, Lns. 9-12; and dynamic data: “the simulations also account for the environment at potential landing sites, and the environment on the flight path to those sites… weather and other environmental conditions, airport ground operations, and airport geography…dynamically updated parameters indicative of risk levels and various possible trade-offs in expected outcomes”, Col. 2, Lns. 43-59} representative of a runway in service on the ground {“Once an emergency and associated need for diversion is detected, the system generates a list of alternative airports the plane can reach given the current conditions of the plane…the simulations also account for the environment at potential landing sites, and the environment on the flight path to those sites…flight-related…including for example and without limitation: flight path data, flight operations plans, aircraft operations, weather and other environmental conditions, airport ground operations, and airport geography.”, Col. 2, Lns. 12-44} and selecting, from the set of preselected runways, based on the recording of data representative of a runway in service on the ground, of the runway to be used for the emergency landing {“A selection of candidate airports 555 may also be based on other factors, such as recently collected data on airport runway conditions. (In FIG. 5 , below, candidate airports 555 are selected from among nearby airports 504.3.)”, Col. 11, Lns. 44-48}.
Regarding Claim 3, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: identifying, within the structure of correlation data {“table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14, corresponding to table 780 in Fig. 7}, at least one record of data representative of characteristics of wind on the ground {“A selection of candidate airports 555 may also be based on other factors, such as recently collected data on airport runway conditions.”, Col. 11, Lns. 44-46}, each record comprising a probability of compatibility {column 690 of table 780 in Fig. 7B} of a runway in service {“A selection of candidate airports 555 may also be based on other factors, such as recently collected data on airport runway conditions.”, Col. 11, Lns. 44-46} and a location area {“the LOAM 305 may require various static input data 315 which may include, for example and without limitation: airport data—locations and capabilities of nearby airports; airport layouts—runway layouts and facility layouts for the nearby airports; terrain data for the geographic area(s) in proximity to the aircraft and in proximity to the nearby airports, including potential landing sites other than airport runways”, Col. 9, Lns. 48-57}; and selecting, from the at least one identified record, a record according to the probability of compatibility of the runway in service {“the LDA 300 may determine that the highest confidence landing option(s) require that the aircraft landing gear be lowered immediately, without delay”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59; see also Col. 24, Lns. 20-29; and “the system provides a “confidence score” which reflects the percentage of computer simulations that, at the current point in time, lead to a successful landing, as well as the rate of change of this confidence over time if the current course of the aircraft is not altered”, Col. 2, Lns. 16-23}.
Regarding Claim 4, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 3. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: wherein said selecting comprises selecting, from the at least one identified record, the record with the highest compatibility probability {“the LDA 300 may determine that the highest confidence landing option(s) require that the aircraft landing gear be lowered immediately, without delay”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59; see also Col. 24, Lns. 20-29}.
Regarding Claim 5, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: wherein said selecting further comprises obtaining, from equipment located on the ground, a datum representative of a runway in service among all preselected runways {weather condition data provided by the dynamic data services 340 in Fig. 3 (i.e., “The dynamic data services 340, which may include vital weather data 342 as well as other real-time environmental data, may be obtained from various third-party reporting services”, Col. 10, Lns. 23-26) and “the simulations also account for the environment at potential landing sites, and the environment on the flight path to those sites…weather and other environmental conditions, airport ground operations, and airport geography”, Col. 2, Lns. 43-55}.
Regarding Claim 6, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising preselecting, from a list of runways which may be used for making an emergency landing {“Landing scenarios and simulated landing paths may be pre-calculated for discrete locations along the original flight path…table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, a set of preselected runways, according to a flight plan of the aircraft {“aircraft flight path model 307 includes variables or parameters, and suitable equations, to predict a slight path and flight vectors based on such factors as…(viii) Airport geo-coordinate, elevation, and runway orientation (which will vary for different nearby airports and different runways)”, Col. 16, Lns. 29-42}.
Regarding Claim 7, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitation: wherein said preselecting is implemented according to a position of the aircraft {“Landing scenarios and simulated landing paths may be pre-calculated for discrete locations along the original flight path…the pre-computer table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, the position being provided by an instrument on-board the aircraft {“the aircraft 100 may include one or more general aircraft controllers 130, together referred to as the avionics suite 130, which may be digital controllers 130 with microprocessor(s) and memory. The aircraft engines 160 may include one or more engine controllers 110 which may be Full Authority Digital Controllers 110 (FADECS).”, Col. 5, Lns. 43-49}.
Regarding Claim 8, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: further comprising obtaining the data representative of the current characteristics of wind at the current latitude by the aircraft, from the speed, attitude and angle of attack information issued {environmental, flight and geographic conditions 504.1 in Fig. 5} by at least one on-board equipment of the aircraft {“In step 400.1, the landing option of assessments module (LOAD) 305 collects information about the current in-situ aircraft status 504 (see FIG. 5 below). The status information may include, for example and without limitation: the aircraft's geolocation and nose orientation; the current operating conditions of the aircraft itself; and the current weather and other environmental conditions, such as wind speed and precipitation.”, Col. 10, Lns. 60-67}.
Regarding Claim 9, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitations: wherein the structure of correlation data {“table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 21-24, and table 780 in Fig. 7} between the data representative of characteristics of the wind at the current altitude {“real-time local weather data, including temperatures, wind speeds, and storm data, which may be obtained from both on-board aircraft sensors 346”, Col. 10, Lns. 4-6; also, Col. 10, Lns. 60-67} and the data representative of runways in service on the ground {“A selection of candidate airports 555 may also be based on other factors, such as recently collected data on airport runway conditions. (In FIG. 5 , below, candidate airports 555 are selected from among nearby airports 504.3.)”, Col. 11, Lns. 44-48}, comprises data serving to link the characteristics of wind at altitude {Col. 10, Lns. 4-6} with the characteristics of wind on the ground {with regard to Fig. 3, dynamic data 340, such as weather conditions 342, are combined with data about runways 317, for evaluation by Landing Options Assessment Module 305 of Landing Decision Assistant 300, compiled in the format of table 780 in Fig. 7}.
Regarding Claim 10, Sellmann teaches the limitations: an electronic device on-board an aircraft {“the aircraft 100 may include one or more general aircraft controllers 130, together referred to as the avionics suite 130, which may be digital controllers 130 with microprocessor(s) and memory. The aircraft engines 160 may include one or more engine controllers 110 which may be Full Authority Digital Controllers 110 (FADECS).”, Col. 5, Lns. 43-49} for the determination of an emergency runway to be used by the aircraft for making an emergency landing when leaving an initial flight plan to proceed to an emergency airport preselected prior to the flight {“(a) Pre-flight data collection for database information (such as information on specific airports) suitable for the planned flight path; (b) Proactive scenario evaluation for the simulation of different alternative landing scenarios, which may include any or all of: (i) pre-flight simulations”, Col. 1, Lns. 30-35}, the emergency airport defining a set of preselected landing runways {“Landing scenarios and simulated landing paths may be pre-calculated for discrete locations along the original flight path…table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, each preselected landing runway corresponding to two runways in service depending on an orientation in which the preselected landing runway is to be taken for landing {“aircraft flight path model 307 includes variables or parameters, and suitable equations, to predict a slight path and flight vectors based on such factors as…(viii) Airport geo-coordinate, elevation, and runway orientation (which will vary for different nearby airports and different runways)”, Col. 16, Lns. 29-42}, the electronic device comprising: an acquisition module {340, Fig. 3, and “(a) Pre-flight data collection for database information (such as information on specific airports) suitable for the planned flight path;”, Col. 2, Lns. 30-32} acquiring, from aircraft on-board equipment, data representative of current wind characteristics at a current altitude of the aircraft {“real-time local weather data, including temperatures, wind speeds, and storm data, which may be obtained from both on-board aircraft sensors 346”, Col. 10, Lns. 4-6}; and a determination module {305, Fig. 3}: (i) determining the emergency runway among the runways in service of the emergency airport to be used for an emergency landing {“the LOAM 305 may require various static input data 315 which may include, for example and without limitation: airport data—locations and capabilities of nearby airports; airport layouts—runway layouts and facility layouts for the nearby airports”, Col. 9, Lns. 48-54}, based on data representative of current wind characteristics at the current altitude of the aircraft {Col. 10, Lns. 4-6, above; also, “In step 820, the LOAM 305 obtains the aircraft's current exterior flight environment 504.1, which may include for example and without limitation: wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and temperature.”, Col. 21, Lns. 8-12; and 504.1, Fig. 5}, the set of preselected runways {Col. 24, Lns. 12-14}, and based on a data correlation structure prepared in advance of the flight linking the data representative of wind characteristics at the current altitude with a probability of compatibility for each runway {“pre-computer table of emergency landing solutions, several flight paths which: (i) are for nearby locations and similar flight conditions, and (ii) indicated a high probability of safe landings.”, Col. 24, Lns. 12-14} in service corresponding to the set of preselected landing runways of the emergency airport {see table 780 in Fig. 7}, the runway in service having the highest probability of compatibility being chosen as the emergency runway, and (ii) facilitating management operations for an emergency landing on the chosen runway {“the LDA 300 may determine that the highest confidence landing option(s) require that the aircraft landing gear be lowered immediately, without delay”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59}, the modules being implemented iteratively {“(M1) Iterate through each candidate airports for emergency landing”, Col. 21, Lns. 58-59}.
Regarding Claim 11, Sellmann discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. In addition, Sellmann explicitly recites the limitation: a non-transitory computer-readable medium {“non-volatile storage 235”, Col. 10, Ln. 13} having stored thereon software instructions which, when executed by a programmable electronic system, cause the programmable electronic system {“FIG. 2 presents a block diagram or system level diagram of an exemplary controller 130, such as a digital computer, which may be employed according to the present system and method. Digital controller 130 may implement or execute, for example, computer code (software or firmware) which enables the aircraft to perform the decision supports methods”, Col. 5, Lns. 56-62} to implement the method of Claim 1 {see Claim 1}.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,367,782 B1 – A method of determining an emergency landing site taking into account both ground-level and aircraft-level wind and weather conditions.
US 8,521,343 B2 – A method of determining a contingency landing site taking into account multiple constraints about the landing site (including wind and weather conditions), in which landing site selection makes use of a database of site information that includes “both preloaded and real-time data from the terrain mapping sensor”, choosing a landing site.
US 10,896,618 B2 – A method of determining which nearby airport to use in the case of low fuel or an emergency, taking into account multiple factors including runway direction and surface wind conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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.
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights