DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 13-15 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1, 5-7, 9 and 13-14 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
The Examiner agrees that a human mind cannot execute maneuver plan or corrective action, so it is not considered a mental process or an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following have insufficient antecedent basis:
"the operational performance characteristics" in claims 5-7 and 13-15,
"the vehicle" in claim 15.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. (US 20240119848 A1; hereinafter George), in view of Lees et al. (US 20110196551 A1; hereinafter Lee) and in view of Wyatt et al. (US 20200026308 A1; hereinafter Wyatt).
Regarding claim 1, George discloses:
A method for validating performance of an Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) of an aircraft ([0110] “determine if the changes apply to the AFCS”), comprising:
receiving a target for the aircraft, by the AFCS, where the target is entered by a pilot of the aircraft ([0110] targets), and wherein the AFCS is arranged to receive at least one of a plurality of modes of auto-flight operation implemented to reach the target ([0110] AFCS modes);
receiving, by the AFCS, one of the modes of auto-flight operation for the aircraft, where the mode auto-flight of operation is entered by the pilot ([0110] AFCS modes);
automatically determining, by the AFCS, an intention of the pilot of the aircraft based on the entered target, the entered mode of auto-flight operation, and a current aircraft status ([0041] “features may characterize a semantic query response time and/or a semantic query response accuracy (e.g., where queries may request pilot to provide aircraft state parameters and/or information for which a deterministically ‘correct’ answer exists, such as the aircraft configuration, aircraft state, altitude, tail number, required pilot responses, text transcripts, etc.; evaluated by NLP or otherwise, etc.).”);
automatically predicting, by the AFCS, a predicted maneuver plan to move the aircraft based on the entered target, the entered mode of auto-flight operation, and the current aircraft status ([0041] “features may characterize a semantic query response time and/or a semantic query response accuracy (e.g., where queries may request pilot to provide aircraft state parameters and/or information for which a deterministically ‘correct’ answer exists, such as the aircraft configuration, aircraft state, altitude, tail number, required pilot responses, text transcripts, etc.; evaluated by NLP or otherwise, etc.).”);
automatically validating, by the AFCS, the predicted maneuver plan based on environmental conditions affecting operation of the aircraft and operational performance ([0069] “The validated flight command can then be provided to an onboard processing system (e.g., FCS/FMS) to facilitate execution in accordance with S150.”), wherein the validating comprises validating the predicted maneuver plan based on traffic, weather, and terrain ([0061] “the aircraft state can be used to determine aircraft control and/or aircraft responses”, [0062] “the aircraft state can include a risk advisory status received from one or more autonomous aircraft agents, such as: a flight protection status, a collision avoidance advisory, a terrain avoidance advisory, a weather avoidance advisory, an ATC advisory (e.g., extracted via NLP), and/or any other suitable advisories/statuses”), wherein successful validation confirms that the pilot entered the correct mode to reach the entered target ([0069] “a flight command can be validated in response to a receipt of a command validation input from the pilot in conjunction with a passable response to a cognitive test or other query”);
automatically determining, by the AFCS, whether the predicted maneuver plan fails validation ([0110] “if changes are not able to be made”);
when the predicted maneuver plan does not fail validation, automatically executing, by the AFCS, the predicted maneuver plan in accordance with the entered target and the entered mode of auto-flight operation ([0110] “the Core can update the AFCS”).
George does not specifically disclose:
when the predicted maneuver plan fails validation:
automatically identifying, by the AFCS, a corrective action for the predicted maneuver plan,
automatically executing, by the AFCS, the corrective action,
automatically controlling a display device on the aircraft to display the corrective action to the pilot.
However, Lees teaches:
when the predicted maneuver plan fails validation:
automatically identifying, by the AFCS ([0028] “automatical maneuvers via AFCS”), a corrective action for the predicted maneuver plan ([0028] Countermeasures),
automatically executing, by the AFCS, the corrective action ([0028] “Depending from the particular circumstances of the situation the system is therefore able to define avoidance maneuvers taking safety first of all sensitive components of the vehicle such as control elements or drive shafts in such a way into a new starting position that they are out of the calculated trajectory of the oncoming object”),
automatically controlling a display device on the aircraft to display the corrective action to the pilot ([0028] “optical and/or acoustic warnings or presentation of recommended maneuvers on a display”).
George and Lees are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control to further incorporate Lees’ flight control for the advantage of providing automatic countermeasure in particular circumstances which results in collision avoidance and safe navigation (Lees’ [0028]).
George as modified does not specifically disclose:
including at least a mode of flight level change (FLCH).
However, Wyatt teaches:
including at least a mode of flight level change (FLCH)([0020] employ a novel Predictive Flight Level Change (P-FLC) control scheme to thereby deliver an enhanced AFC).
Wyatt is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Wyatt’s flight control for the advantage of employing a FLC control scheme which results in an enhanced AFCS (Wyatt’s [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, George discloses:
A system for validating performance of an Auto Flight Control System (AFCS) of an aircraft ([0110] “determine if the changes apply to the AFCS”), comprising:
an interactive pilot display for the AFCS ([0039] “Monitoring data can be collected by onboard sensors, human machine interface (HMI) sensors (e.g., push-button inputs, touchscreen inputs, a multi-function display, audio panel, etc.; such as at a validation interface)”), where a pilot uses the interactive display to:
enter a target for the aircraft into the AFCS ([0110] targets), and wherein the AFCS is arranged to receive at least one of a plurality of modes of auto-flight operation implemented to reach the target ([0110] AFCS modes),
enter one of the modes of auto-flight operation for the aircraft into the AFCS ([0110] AFCS modes); and
a microprocessor (Fig. 2: system 100) operating the AFCS, wherein the AFCS:
automatically determines an intention of the pilot of the aircraft based on the entered target, the entered mode of auto-flight operation, and a current aircraft status ([0041] “features may characterize a semantic query response time and/or a semantic query response accuracy (e.g., where queries may request pilot to provide aircraft state parameters and/or information for which a deterministically ‘correct’ answer exists, such as the aircraft configuration, aircraft state, altitude, tail number, required pilot responses, text transcripts, etc.; evaluated by NLP or otherwise, etc.).”),
automatically predicts a predicted maneuver plan to move the aircraft based on the entered target, mode of auto-flight operation, and the current aircraft status ([0041] “features may characterize a semantic query response time and/or a semantic query response accuracy (e.g., where queries may request pilot to provide aircraft state parameters and/or information for which a deterministically ‘correct’ answer exists, such as the aircraft configuration, aircraft state, altitude, tail number, required pilot responses, text transcripts, etc.; evaluated by NLP or otherwise, etc.).”),
automatically validates the predicted maneuver plan based on environmental conditions affecting operation of the aircraft and operational performance ([0069] “The validated flight command can then be provided to an onboard processing system (e.g., FCS/FMS) to facilitate execution in accordance with S150.”), wherein the validating comprises validating the predicted maneuver plan based on traffic, weather, and terrain ([0061] “the aircraft state can be used to determine aircraft control and/or aircraft responses”, [0062] “the aircraft state can include a risk advisory status received from one or more autonomous aircraft agents, such as: a flight protection status, a collision avoidance advisory, a terrain avoidance advisory, a weather avoidance advisory, an ATC advisory (e.g., extracted via NLP), and/or any other suitable advisories/statuses”), wherein successful validation confirms that the pilot entered the correct mode to reach the entered target ([0069] “a flight command can be validated in response to a receipt of a command validation input from the pilot in conjunction with a passable response to a cognitive test or other query”);
automatically determines whether the predicted maneuver plan fails validation ([0110] “if changes are not able to be made”);
when the predicted maneuver plan does not fail validation, automatically executes the maneuver plan in accordance with the entered target and mode of auto-flight operation ([0110] “the Core can update the AFCS”).
George does not specifically disclose:
when the predicted maneuver plan fails validation:
automatically identifies a corrective action for the predicted maneuver plan,
automatically executes the corrective action, and
automatically controls a display device on the aircraft to display the corrective action to the pilot.
However, Lees teaches:
when the predicted maneuver plan fails validation:
automatically identifies a corrective action ([0028] “automatical maneuvers via AFCS”) for the predicted maneuver plan ([0028] Countermeasures),
automatically executes the corrective action ([0028] “Depending from the particular circumstances of the situation the system is therefore able to define avoidance maneuvers taking safety first of all sensitive components of the vehicle such as control elements or drive shafts in such a way into a new starting position that they are out of the calculated trajectory of the oncoming object”), and
automatically controls a display device on the aircraft to display the corrective action to the pilot ([0028] “optical and/or acoustic warnings or presentation of recommended maneuvers on a display”).
George and Lees are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control to further incorporate Lees’ flight control for the advantage of providing automatic countermeasure in particular circumstances which results in collision avoidance and safe navigation (Lees’ [0028]).
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George, in view of Lees, in view of Wyatt, and in view of Offer et al. (US9257048B1; hereinafter Offer).
Regarding claim 5, George as modified does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft comprise overshooting of the target.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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, George as modified does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft comprise undershooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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, George as modified does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft comprise overshooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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, George as modified does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft comprise overshooting of the target.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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, George as modified does not specifically disclose:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft comprise undershooting of a landing.
However, Offer discloses:
where the operational performance characteristics of the aircraft 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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, George as modified 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).
Offer is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of flight 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 George’s flight control as currently modified to further incorporate Offer’s flight control for the advantage of allowing the pilot to control the bank angle 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
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
Prosecution Insights