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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
After review of the independent claims, Examiner has concluded that claims do not invoke 35 USC 101. Last limitation of claim 1, “displaying…only when the vertical trajectory is flyable” solves problem of providing pilot with unnecessary and unflyable vertical trajectory display. The present invention solves this problem by providing display of only flyable trajectory. Paragraph 34 recites, “With the arrangement, relatively immediate usability of a flyable vertical trajectory can be achieved by displaying a flyable flight plan and vertical trajectory for a manual leg, and by one form, displaying only flyable vertical profiles for the manual leg. This simplifies manual leg flight planning, and in turn, improves the efficiency of the FMS and reduces time consumption for planning the manual leg by the aircraft crew. Thus, safety is increased by reducing the pilot work load due to the reduction in manual leg planning operations or so that their attention can be directed to other cockpit tasks.” Therefore, said additional element integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (improvement in the functioning of a computer, and improvement in technology for aviation field).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102[a][1] as being anticipated by Boyer et al. (US 20220282975 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Boyer teaches, A method of generating a vertical trajectory of a flight path for an aircraft, comprising: (See abstract, method further comprises a step of determining, on the basis of the reference profile, vertical predictions relating to a vertical trajectory of the aircraft)
receiving indication that a downpath leg on the flight path is to be a manual leg with an entry waypoint, an exit waypoint, and a change of altitude between the entry and exit waypoints; (Boyer does not explicitly mention “downpath leg”, however, under the BRI, “downpath leg” is merely a leg in the descent/approach phase. Boyer teaches descent/manual legs in paragraphs 21-22, 69, 86-87. See paragraph 12, FM leg (Fix to a Manual termination) and the VM leg (Heading to a Manual termination). These legs are ‘manual’ … end of such a leg is determined manually by the pilot while flying over the leg, e.g. following an instruction from air traffic control…paragraph 11, Most of these legs define a starting point and an endpoint. Furthermore, vertical constraints may be defined on one or both of these points…paragraph 8-9, 72, 177, change of altitude. Also see paragraph 104, 106, waypoints)
estimating, by at least one processor, an estimated distance along a potential lateral flight path at the manual leg and extending in a direction from the entry waypoint to the exit waypoint and depending on the change in altitude; (See paragraph 109, the required distance d.sub.req is determined as a function of the direct distance d.sub.dir between the corresponding frame segments…paragraph 110, 177,
PNG
media_image1.png
74
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where ΔH.sub.i indicates altitude change. Also see paragraphs 106, 113-115)
generating by at least one processor, the vertical trajectory along the manual leg and at least depending on the estimated distance; (See paragraph 192, determines vertical predictions related to a vertical trajectory of the aircraft based on the reference profile…paragraph 190, the processing unit 22 integrates the required distance dreq determined in the geometric portion in question of the reference profile…paragraph 82)
determining, by at least one processor, one or more altitude constraints affecting flight path altitudes at the manual leg; (See paragraph 72, Each constraint of the flight plan is associated with a waypoint…Such a constraint refers, in particular, to an altitude or speed constraint…paragraph 107, ensure sufficient energy dissipation for compliance with upstream, intermediate, and downstream constraints…paragraphs 74-78)
determining, by at least one processor, after the vertical trajectory is generated, whether the vertical trajectory is flyable by comparing the vertical trajectory to the altitude constraints; and (See paragraph 162, the processing unit 22 analyses whether the profile constructed using the slope γ.sub.j; complies with all of the intermediate altitude constraints on the geometric portion in question…paragraph 163, If this is the case, the processing unit 22 will move on to the next step (iv). Otherwise, i.e. if there is at least one missed constraint, the processing unit 22 will again go to the step 111…paragraph 107, the processing unit 22 determines a required distance d.sub.req corresponding to a minimum flight distance over the segment of discontinuity to ensure sufficient energy dissipation for compliance. Meeting compliance = flyable)
displaying, the vertical trajectory to a user only when the vertical trajectory is flyable. (See paragraphs 162-163 (compliance met), paragraph 208, fig. 3, display is performed after compliance being met. See paragraph 209, in this step 140, the processing unit 22 transmits the trajectory determined to a display in the cockpit of the aircraft, in particular to the vertical display and/or the navigation display.)
In regards to claim 2, Boyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vertical trajectory depends on a planned speed of the aircraft at the manual leg, and wherein both the planned speed and estimated distance are iterated until a flyable vertical trajectory is generated. (See paragraph 20, Because the calculation of altitude profiles is intimately linked to the calculation of speed profiles, this may also result in altitude being stepped down during the construction of the aircraft's trajectory…paragraph 162-163, the processing unit 22 analyses whether the profile constructed using the slope γ.sub.j; complies with all of the intermediate altitude constraints on the geometric portion in question…If this is the case, the processing unit 22 will move on to the next step (iv). Otherwise, i.e. if there is at least one missed constraint, the processing unit 22 will again go to the step 111, considering the missed constraint to be the intermediate endpoint. (iteration)…paragraph 133,
PNG
media_image2.png
130
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where dcas is calibrated air speed of the aircraft)
In regards to claim 3, Boyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a planned speed of the aircraft is used to determine a flight path angle (FPA) and is at an idle thrust zero airbrake. (See paragraph 133,
PNG
media_image2.png
130
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where dcas is calibrated air speed of the aircraft…paragraph 98, the profile is calculated with a group of segments having a constant thrust up to the cruising level, the calculation considered optimal in terms of fuel consumption, and referred to as the ‘idle’ profile…also paragraphs 108 and 147, A/B is a parameter defining the position of the air brakes; where position of the brakes encompasses zero airbrake)
In regards to claim 4, Boyer teaches the method of claim 1, comprising determining whether an altitude constraint exists on at least one of: the entry waypoint, the exit waypoint, a point between the entry and exit waypoints, or a point before or after the manual leg along the potential lateral flight path, and wherein the altitude constraint directly or indirectly limits the altitude of the vertical trajectory at any one or more of the entry waypoint, the exit waypoint, or a point between the entry and exit waypoints of the manual leg, and wherein the altitude constraint is other than one at the exit waypoint or a point downpath from the exit waypoint and that is set by an air traffic control. (Flight plan is provided by the ATC, therefore, constraint of flight plan reads on constraint set by air traffic control. See paragraph 72, Each constraint of the flight plan is associated with a waypoint…paragraph 107, the processing unit 22 determines a required distance d.sub.req corresponding to a minimum flight distance over the segment of discontinuity to ensure sufficient energy dissipation for compliance with upstream, intermediate, and downstream constraints, i.e. at the waypoints A, B, C, and D (upstream = before leg, downstream = after leg)
In regards to claim 5, Boyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the estimated distance depends on a flight path angle (FPA) and the change in altitude from the entry to the exit of the manual leg. (See paragraph 110,
PNG
media_image3.png
86
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…paragraph 114, FPA.sub.i is an elementary slope on an elementary interval i obtained following the altitude discretisation of the altitude variation interval corresponding to the geometric portion in question and determined relative to the ground…paragraph 115-116, ΔH.sub.i is the step defining the elementary interval i. ΔH is variation in altitude. Also see paragraph 109, the required distance d.sub.req is determined as a function of the direct distance d.sub.dir between the corresponding frame segments (entry/exit points)).
In regards to claim 7, Boyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the altitude constraints relate to at least one of: a relative position of other aircraft, airspace restrictions, obstacles, and terrain other than one at the exit waypoint or a point downpath from the exit waypoint and that is set by an air traffic control.(See paragraph 4, these systems allow for the construction of an aircraft trajectory based on a flight plan representing the contract between the airline company and air traffic control.)
In regards to claim 14, Boyer teaches the system of claim 8, comprising at least one motion control input device in the aircraft cockpit, and wherein the at least one processor is arranged to operate by receiving manual control commands from the input device to control the motion of the aircraft along the vertical trajectory after displaying the vertical trajectory.(See paragraph 12, At least some of the legs may have no specified endpoints. In ARINC 424, this is the case, in particular, with the FM leg (Fix to a Manual termination) and the VM leg (Heading to a Manual termination). These legs are ‘manual’ or ‘manual termination’ legs, given that the end of such a leg is determined manually by the pilot while flying over the leg, e.g. following an instruction from air traffic control. The system inserts a lateral discontinuity following these legs, indicating that the remainder of the flight plan will only be followed after action by the pilot…paragraph 61, display the results of its operation on the screen 15 of the FMS 12 or on any other screen in the cockpit of the aircraft or on a remote screen. Also see fig. 10)
Claims 8-11, 13 are similar in scope to claims 1-3, 5, 7, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 15-19 are similar in scope to claims 1-5, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights