DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 7/15/2024 and IDS filed 12/12/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14 and 18 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2, 15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
6. Acknowledgement is made for priority to provisional application 63/526624, filed 7/13/2023.
Drawings
7. The Drawings filed on 7/15/2024 have been approved.
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 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zammit-Mangion herein Zammit (U.S. Pub 2016/0179327, filed Aug. 31, 2015) in view of Christena (U.S. Pub 2007/0240062, filed Apr. 7, 2006).
Regarding Independent claims 1, 14 and 18, Zammit discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising:
a lateral guidance initiation element indicating a lateral guidance route, wherein the lateral guidance initiation element is operator interactable to engage an aerial vehicle in a flight plan comprising the lateral guidance route (see paragraph 84 & Fig. 4, discloses interactive control for lateral navigation via LNAV mode button. Further in paragraph 75 teaches operator interaction via touch gestures), and
a vertical guidance initiation element indicating a vertical guidance route, wherein the vertical guidance initiation element is: operator interactable to engage the aerial vehicle in the vertical guidance route of the flight plan (see paragraph 84 & Fig. 4, discloses interactive control for vertical navigation via VNAV mode button. Further in paragraph 75 teaches operator interaction via touch gestures), and
update the lateral guidance initiation element to visually indicate that the aerial vehicle is engaged in automatic lateral control according to the lateral guidance route when the operator interacts with the lateral guidance initiation element (see paragraph 75, discloses operator interaction via touch gestures wherein the GUI provides feedback when buttons are pressed including visual feedback with changes in size and color); and
update the vertical guidance initiation element to visually indicate that the aerial vehicle is engaged in automatic vertical control according to the vertical guidance route when the operator interacts with the vertical guidance initiation element while the aerial vehicle is engaged in automatic lateral control (see paragraph 75, discloses operator interaction via touch gestures wherein the GUI provides feedback when buttons are pressed including visual feedback with changes in size and color). Zammit discloses a GUI for aircraft autopilot that includes lateral and vertical navigation engagement via buttons that are operator-interactable via tap/tough gestures with visual feedback (color/size changes) when pressed. Zammit fails to teach that the VNAV button is conditionally disabled until the LNAV button is engaged.
Christena discloses:
conditionally disabled from operator interaction until at least an operator interacts with the lateral guidance initiation element (see paragraphs 41-52, discloses a GUI wherein a second control element via button 306 is conditionally disabled based on the state of a first control element via checkbox 308, with visual indication of the disabled state (non-solid outline) with user input events directed to the disabled element being discarded); It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied conditional button disabling techniques of Christena to the LNAV/VNAV interface of Zammit to prevent pilot error by enforcing proper mode engagement sequence, thereby improving safety and reducing mode confusion. Zammit explicitly states safety has a primary goal in paragraph 12 thus showing motivation to improve pilot-system interaction for safety. Further discussing mode management complexity with identification of mode confusion as an issue in autopilot systems in paragraph 5.
Regarding Dependent claims 3, 16 and 20, Zammit fails to teach that the VNAV button is conditionally disabled until the LNAV button is engaged. Christena discloses wherein the vertical guidance initiation element is displayed as disarmed until the operator interacts with the lateral guidance initiation element (see paragraphs 41-52); It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied conditional button disabling techniques of Christena to the LNAV/VNAV interface of Zammit to prevent pilot error by enforcing proper mode engagement sequence, thereby improving safety and reducing mode confusion. Zammit explicitly states safety has a primary goal in paragraph 12 thus showing motivation to improve pilot-system interaction for safety. Further discussing mode management complexity with identification of mode confusion as an issue in autopilot systems in paragraph 5.
Regarding Dependent claims 4 and 17, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions to update the lateral guidance initiation element, when executed by the processor, further cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to remove the lateral guidance route from display (see paragraph 84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions to update the vertical guidance initiation element, when executed by the processor, further cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to remove the vertical guidance route from display (see paragraph 84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the lateral guidance route comprises a start destination label and an end destination label (see paragraphs 117-119, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the vertical guidance route comprises an altitude change (see paragraph 84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the GUI is displayed on a touch screen of the aerial vehicle (see abstract & paragraphs 11-14, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 8, Zammit discloses wherein the GUI further comprises a speed tape, wherein the speed tape is operator interactable with a swiping gesture to engage the aerial vehicle at a target speed (paragraphs 82-84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 8, Zammit discloses wherein the GUI further comprises an altitude tape, wherein the altitude tape is operator interactable with a swiping gesture to engage the aerial vehicle at a target altitude (paragraphs 82-84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 8, Zammit discloses wherein the GUI further comprises a heading wheel, wherein the heading wheel is operator interactable with a rotating gesture to engage the aerial vehicle at a target heading, the rotating gesture comprising one or more fingers moving in a circle (paragraphs 82-84, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 8, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions further comprise instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: receive a first operator interaction with the GUI at the touch screen; receive a second operator interaction with the GUI at a control stick of the aerial vehicle, wherein the first operator interaction and the second operator interaction are received within a predefined time window; and determine, based on a hierarchy of control inputs, to override one of the first operator interaction or second operator interaction (paragraphs 76-78, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 1, Zammit discloses wherein the instructions further comprise instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: calculate a distance until the aerial vehicle reaches a destination of the lateral guidance route when the operator interacts with the lateral guidance initiation element; and update the GUI to display the calculated distance (see paragraphs 5 & 96, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
1/6/2026