DETAILED ACTION
This is the final Office action and is responsive to the papers filed 10/28/2025. The amendments filed on 10/28/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
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) submitted on 11/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-16 have not been withdrawn.
The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgement and opinions, and that it improves the technical field of flight operations (pages 5-7).
The Examiner disagrees. Determining an intention, predicting a maneuver plan and validating the predicted maneuver plan are all mental concepts listed by the Applicant (“observations, evaluations, judgement and opinions”) that can be performed in a human mind. Further, limitations such as inputting and outputting data can be done by a generic processor. None of the limitations provide any technical adjustment or effect to the aircraft or flight operation so it’s doubtful it is an improvement to the technical field of flight operations.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the claims 1-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 of claims 1-16 have not been withdrawn.
In page 8 of the Applicant’s Argument, the Applicant argues Kolbe does not teach, disclose or suggest the use of a mode of auto-flight operation.
The Examiner disagrees. Entering a mode of auto-flight operation means entering a setting for auto-flight operation. Kolbe’s [0001] indicates that the FMS automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks and in-flight management of the flight plan. This means when the pilot inputs his flight preference into the controller 30 of FMS in Kolbe’s [0013]-[0014] and [0018], the pilot is inputting a setting/mode for the in-flight management, which is automated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed to a method or a system for validating performance of an AFCS of a vehicle. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a method (a process) or a system (a machine). Step 1: Yes.
Step 2A – prong 1: Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitations of: determining an intention of the pilot of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation; predicting a maneuver plan of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation; validating the predicted maneuver plan based on environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle; validating the predicted maneuver plan based on operational performance characteristics of the vehicle; and providing a suggested corrective action to the pilot if predicted maneuver plan fails to be validated. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than “by a system or a microprocessor” nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, other than “by a system or a microprocessor” language, the claims encompass a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of a “by a system or a microprocessor” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim 6 is directed to mental process. Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Claims 1 and 9 recite additional elements of a system, a microprocessor and an interactive display for performing entering, determining, predicting, validating, alerting and providing steps. The system, microprocessor and interactive display are recited at a high level of generality, therefore acting generic computer components to perform the abstract idea as well as to receive and output data. The system, microprocessor and interactive display are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacities and do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong 2: No.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. Step 2B: No.
Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 do not contain limitations that render them subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolbe et al. (US 20140032103 A1; hereinafter Kolbe).
Regarding claim 1, Kolbe discloses:
A method ([0002] determining suitability/unsuitability of the at least a portion of the flight plan) for validating performance of an Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) of a vehicle (Fig. 1 – aircraft 10), comprising:
entering a target for the vehicle into the AFCS, where the target is entered by a pilot of the vehicle ([0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0014] the information for the waypoints 44 may be provided to the controller 30 by the pilot);
entering a mode of auto-flight operation for the vehicle into the AFCS, where the mode of auto-flight operation is entered by the pilot of the vehicle ([0001] The FMS automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks and..in-flight management of the flight plan; [0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0018] pilot's flight preferences);
determining an intention of the pilot of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation ([0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0014] input of the information related to the flight plan 42; [0018] pilot's flight preferences);
predicting a maneuver plan of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation ([0017] include generating a predicted trajectory based on at least one of weather, terrain, fixed obstacles, and variable obstacles, and flight characteristics or performance attributes of the aircraft 10);
validating the predicted maneuver plan based on environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle ([0017] generate the predicted trajectory to be compared with the at least one suitability criteria; [0024] weather, terrain, fixed obstacles, variable obstacles);
validating the predicted maneuver plan based on operational performance characteristics of the vehicle ([0017] generate the predicted trajectory to be compared with the at least one suitability criteria; [0024] flight characteristics of the aircraft 10; [0016] the suitability criteria may include a speed preferences, bank angle preferences, etc.);
alerting the pilot if predicted maneuver plan fails to be validated ([0027] The controller 30 may further alert the user that the display indicia related to the unsuitability of the at least a portion of the flight plan has been displayed); and
providing a suggested corrective action to the pilot if predicted maneuver plan fails to be validated ([0024] at least a suitable portion of a flight plan or at least one suitable alternative waypoint location may be displayed when the at least a portion of the flight plan 42 is determined to be unsuitable).
Regarding claim 2, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise air traffic ([0016] The suitability criteria may include destination arrival time and proximity preferences. The destination arrival time may include a range of suitable times for the destination arrival. Proximity preferences may include staying out of no-fly zones such as military operations areas or a preferred distance from high-altitude features.).
Regarding claim 3, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise weather conditions ([0016] The suitability criteria may include weather preferences. Weather preferences may include a preferred distance from inclement weather.).
Regarding claim 4, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise terrain ([0017] terrain).
Regarding claim 8, Kolbe discloses:
where the suggested corrective action is automatically implemented by the AFCS ([0029] present alternative segments of the flight plan to give the user a new flight plan that will satisfy the criteria and provide the user with an acceptable flight plan alternative without additional input being needed from the user).
Regarding claim 9, Kolbe discloses:
A system (Fig. 1) for validating performance of an Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) of a vehicle (Fig. 1 – aircraft 10)([0002] determining suitability/unsuitability of the at least a portion of the flight plan), comprising:
an interactive pilot display (Fig. 1 – touch screen surface 24) for the AFCS, where a pilot uses the interactive display to ([0008] touch screen surface 24 such as selecting options, inputting commands and other data),
enter a target for the vehicle into the AFCS ([0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0014] the information for the waypoints 44 may be provided to the controller 30 by the pilot);
enter a mode of auto-flight operation for the vehicle into the AFCS ([0001] The FMS automates a wide variety of in-flight tasks and..in-flight management of the flight plan; [0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0018] pilot's flight preferences); and
a microprocessor for the AFCS that,
determines an intention of the pilot of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation ([0013] the controller 30 may utilize inputs from the pilot; [0014] input of the information related to the flight plan 42; [0018] pilot's flight preferences),
predicts a maneuver plan of the vehicle based on the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation ([0017] include generating a predicted trajectory based on at least one of weather, terrain, fixed obstacles, and variable obstacles, and flight characteristics or performance attributes of the aircraft 10),
validates the predicted maneuver plan based on environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle ([0017] generate the predicted trajectory to be compared with the at least one suitability criteria; [0024] weather, terrain, fixed obstacles, variable obstacles),
validates the predicted maneuver plan based on operational performance characteristics of the vehicle ([0017] generate the predicted trajectory to be compared with the at least one suitability criteria; [0024] flight characteristics of the aircraft 10; [0016] the suitability criteria may include a speed preferences, bank angle preferences, etc.),
alerts the pilot if predicted maneuver plan fails to be validated ([0027] The controller 30 may further alert the user that the display indicia related to the unsuitability of the at least a portion of the flight plan has been displayed), and
provides a suggested corrective action to the pilot if predicted maneuver plan fails to be validated ([0024] at least a suitable portion of a flight plan or at least one suitable alternative waypoint location may be displayed when the at least a portion of the flight plan 42 is determined to be unsuitable).
Regarding claim 10, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise air traffic ([0016] The suitability criteria may include destination arrival time and proximity preferences. The destination arrival time may include a range of suitable times for the destination arrival. Proximity preferences may include staying out of no-fly zones such as military operations areas or a preferred distance from high-altitude features.).
Regarding claim 11, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise weather conditions ([0016] The suitability criteria may include weather preferences. Weather preferences may include a preferred distance from inclement weather.).
Regarding claim 12, Kolbe discloses:
where the environmental conditions affecting the target for the vehicle comprise terrain ([0017] terrain).
Regarding claim 16, Kolbe discloses:
where the suggested corrective action is automatically implemented by the AFCS ([0029] present alternative segments of the flight plan to give the user a new flight plan that will satisfy the criteria and provide the user with an acceptable flight plan alternative without additional input being needed from the user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolbe in view of Offer et al. (US9257048B1; hereinafter Offer).
Regarding claim 5, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of the target.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of the target (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 6, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise undershooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise undershooting of a landing (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 7, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of a landing (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 13, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of the target.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of the target (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 14, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise undershooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise undershooting of a landing (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 15, Kolbe does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the vehicle comprise overshooting of a landing (col. 23, lines 32-37 – the routing module 1102 supplies the pilot with the bank angle required to approach the landing site along the correct heading for the known subarcs 1508A-B. The bank angles are displayed in the cockpit so the pilot can accurately fly to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path).
Kolbe and Offer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolbe’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft to further incorporate Offer’s suitability that takes into account bank angle of the aircraft during landing for the advantage of having correct heading which results in accurately flying to the landing site without overshooting or undershooting the ideal flight path (Offer’s col. 23, lines 32-37).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665