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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on 12/16/2025. Claims 1—7 and 9 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Foreign Patent Application FR2308481, filed in the French Republic on 08/04/2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 07/31/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the objection to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn for 6 and 7; however, the interpretation is maintained below for claim 1 which recites “a control device for controlling the propulsion engine,” and therefore invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are addressed as follows.
The Response at page 8 states “[t]he final step— “sending the modified position information… to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine”— is the final, technical integration that directly changes the operation of a physical machine,” to which the Examiner does not agree. As drafted, the claims do not positively recite the technical integration/practical application in a manner that requires a change in the propulsion engine. To start, the portion of the claim 1 directed to “modifying the received position information,” is a conditional limitation which is only performed when the flight condition and the validity condition are verified. Importantly, since the limitation is conditional, the limitation does not actually have to be performed to fulfill the required limitations of the claim. Notably, even if the limitation were drafted such that the “modifying” step were expressly required in all embodiments of the claim (e.g., not conditional), the act of “modifying the received position information” does not require the modification of the operation of the propulsion engine. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “modifying the received position information,” could merely require updating a position information value/variable in a data table or log of a computer database. More specifically, merely updating the position information in a database does not expressly require that the position information is used to move the throttle from a first position to a second position. As such, the limitations directed to “modifying the received position information,” do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
The Response at page 9 states “[a]ccordingly, the method steps are performed by a ‘device configured to receive position information’… [t]he result is a change in the physical control of the engine,” to which the Examiner does not agree. In addition to the above discussed deficiencies in the limitation directed to “modifying,” Examiner notes the limitation of “sending the modified position information… to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine, where in the control device controls the propulsion engine,” also does not provide a practical application. To start, the limitation is linked to the above discussed conditional limitation and suffers the same deficiencies in that regard. Additionally, the limitation merely requires that the position information is sent to the controller. The limitation does not expressly state how the position information is used by the controller nor does the limitation require that the controller is actually adjusted according to the information. Furthermore, the limitations directed to how the control device is controlled are not positively recited in a manner that requires the limitations are actually performed. Therefore, the claim is not drafted in a manner which requires that a physical adjustment is made to the engine. As such, the limitations directed to “sending the modified position information,” do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
The Response at page 9 states “[s]econd, as background, an abstract idea is transformed into a patent-eligible application… if the method is tied to a particular machine or transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. The method is inextricably tied to the operation of a physical machine—the aircraft propulsion engine.” Examiner notes that the limitations directed to the aircraft propulsion engine are generically recited and do not include limitations directed to any specific or particular configuration of an aircraft propulsion engine. As such, while the propulsion engine is a physical machine, it is recited too generically to constitute a particular machine.
For the above provided reasons, the rejection of claims 1—7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained as provided below.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/16/2025 in response to the rejection of claims 1—3, 6—7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to Johnson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection as provided below under 35 U.S.C. 103 to Johnson and Nikolic. The arguments are addressed as follows:
The Response at page 11 states “[i]n rejecting the ‘obtaining’ step of claim 1, the Examiner cited paragraphs [0053] and [0062] of Johnson… however, the system of Johnson is not obtaining a category at all — Johnson is just assessing metric to determine if the plane should autoland.” Examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation of “obtaining” information on a category is not distinct from “analyzing” information on a category insofar as the obtaining portion is inherent to the analyzing portion. For example, with respect to the obtained categories, the instant application states the following:
“[e]ach item of information associated with the encountered predefined situation, such as the category, the predefined activation duration or the expected predefined position of the throttle lever 11, can be obtained, for example, by means of a request in a database based on an item of information representing the detected predefined situation.” (Instant Application, para. [0027]);
“[a]ccording to a preferred embodiment, a first category corresponds to crew incapacitation. The validity condition for the first category is that the crew firstly must be declared unfit. The crew is declared unfit when the crew cannot physically actuate the throttle lever 11, for example, when the crew is absent from the cockpit during a physiological break or when the crew is physically incapacitated. A second category corresponds to a crew that is declared fit, with no emergency linked to the predefined situation. As long as the crew is not declared unfit, the validity condition for the second category is verified. A third category corresponds to an emergency, whether or not the crew is fit. The validity condition for the third category is always verified.” (Instant Application, para. [0031]).
In view of the above citations from the Instant Application, Examiner notes the analysis performed in Johnson as recited in para. [0053] and [0062] is directed to assessing gathered data and verifying whether or not 1.) the crew is fit and 2.) an emergency is occuring. For example, Johnson at para. [0053] states “[w]hen no user input is detected at one of the monitored onboard components or systems within the identified monitoring period threshold, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 generates or otherwise provides output that indicates a potential pilot incapacity condition (task 610). For example, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 may provide one or more output signals to an automated autoland activation process that automatically initiates activation of autoland functionality.” Likewise, Johnson at para. [0062] states “[i]n response to detecting occurrence of a triggering event, the adaptive monitoring process 800 identifies, obtains, or otherwise determines a scaling factor associated with the detected triggering event… the scaling factors associated with emergency events are less than the scaling factors associated with nominal events to facilitate more aggressive reductions to the current activity monitoring period in response to emergency events relative to nominal events, which are less likely to be an emergency or correlative with pilot incapacity.”
In order to perform these analsysis, the algorithms associated with the analysis have to receive (e.g., “obtain”) information/data to analyze. Moreover, the analysis of Johnson automatically and recurrently takes place as part of the monitoring processes performed by the flight guidance system 10 as soon at the plane climbs above a given elevation (e.g., see Johnson para. [0041]). For the foregoing reasons, the arguments that Johnson does not disclose “obtaining… a category,” are not persuasive.
The Response at page 11 states “there is no citation provided for the following feature: ‘with each predefined situation being associated with a category from among predefined categories and each category representing a predefined piloting context,” to which the Examiner does not agree. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the whole disclosure of Johnson is directed to operations which occur in piloting context. For example, Johnson at para. [0041] states “the pilot incapacitation monitoring process automatically begins monitoring (step 200) each flight once the aircraft has climbed above a minimum threshold altitude for enabling the autoland functionality (alternatively referred to as a minimum armed height (MAH)).” As set forth in the rejection, the predefined situation includes phases of flight (e.g., which are inherently tied to pilot operations insofar as they are grouped by how the plane is being operated) and the categories include emergencies (e.g., which include analyzing pilot operations) and situations where the pilot is nonresponsive (e.g., which also includes analyzing pilot operations). As such, Johnson discloses predefined piloting contexts because all of the operations cited in the rejection to which the disclosure is directed either include or analyze a situation in which the plane is being piloted. For the foregoing reasons, the arguments that Johnson does not disclose, and that the rejection did not provide material for the limitation a “category representing a predefined piloting context,” are not persuasive.
The Response at page 11 further states “claim 1 states ‘obtaining a predefined activation duration associated with the encountered predefined situation and an expected predefined position of the throttle lever in said encountered predefined situation.’ There is no teaching in Johnson of this feature,” to which the Examiner does not agree. Johnson at para. [0043], which is cited in the rejection, states “[a] non-exhaustive list of pilot behavior or parts of the flight deck that may be monitored using a flight phase-specific threshold monitoring time period may include one or more of the following… Example hardware controllers that may be monitored for interaction include one or more of the autopilot quick disconnect button (AP QD), touch control steering (TCS), throttle quadrant assembly (TQA), takeoff/go around (TOGA) button, autothrottle (AT) engage/disengage button, autothrottle quick disconnect button (AT QD)… [i]n the absence of manual interaction with any of the monitored components of the flight deck within the flight phase-specific threshold monitoring time period, the pilot incapacitation monitoring process detects a potential pilot incapacity event or condition.” As such, Johnson clearly discloses a predefined throttle position related to the flight phase and the monitoring duration in the absence of adjustment to the throttle (no change in current throttle position) is the expected position to trigger the determination of a pilot incapacity condition. As such, the arguments that Johnson does not disclose “an expected predefined position of the throttle lever,” are not persuasive. Furthermore, the provided amendments related to the throttle lever necessitate a modified rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, as provided below. The modified rejection renders the above addressed arguments moot.
The Response at page 11 and 12 includes arguments directed to the limitations of “modifying the received position information… when the flight condition… and the validity condition… are simultaneously verified.” However, as addressed above in the section directed to 35 U.S.C. 101, the limitations directed to “modifying the received position information” and “sending the modified position information… to a control device,” are conditional limitations whose performance is not required in order to fully perform the required limitations of claim 1. As such, whether or not Johnson recites the limitations is moot because the limitations are not required by the claim. While not required to reject the claims as drafted, the amended conditional limitations are addressed below in rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the sake of compact prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control device for controlling the propulsion engine,” in claim 1. “A control device for controlling the propulsion engine,” is understood to be a generic computer and/or a processor, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1—7 and 9 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.
Claim 1 recites “the method comprising: receiving position information representing a current throttle position, wherein the method comprises,” and proceeds to list steps which may be used in combination with receiving position information. However, the subsequently recited steps do not constitute a method of receiving position information. More specifically, the limitations directed to determining, obtaining, and assessing are not steps in a sub-method for “receiving position information.” Additionally, “receiving position information,” is itself a step in a method rather than a method itself. As such, the claim is indefinite because the limitations directed to determining, obtaining, and assessing are not steps of a separate method directed to “receiving position information.” As best understood, the limitation directed to “receiving position information,” should likely be drafted such that it is recited at the same level in the claim as the limitations directed to determining, obtaining, and assessing. In order to overcome the indefiniteness rejection, the claim should be amended to recite “receiving position information representing a current position of the throttle lever;limitation of “receiving position information” is understood to be part of the same method which includes the steps of “determining… obtaining… assessing… modifying… and sending.”
Claims 2—5 and 9 depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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—7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1 and 6 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture) respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite(s) abstract limitations including: “determining that a predefined situation… is encountered” (e.g., a mental process); “obtaining… a category associated with said predefined situation” (e.g., a mental process); “obtaining a predefined activation duration associated with the encountered predefined situation” (e.g., a mental process); and “assessing a condition…” (e.g., a mental process).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above identified limitations cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, actions such as making determinations, observations, and assessments are behaviors which are well within the capacity of a human mind. As drafted, the limitations directed to “obtaining” data do not recite any sensors or components which would preclude the act of “obtaining” from being equivalent to the mental process of making an observation. As such, nothing in the above identified limitations precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Additionally the mere recitation of generic computing elements (e.g., a device configured to receive position information and/or a control device, both of which are understood to be a generic computing elements) and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claims 1 and 6 recite the additional element of “modifying the received position information… when the flight condition… and the validity condition… are verified” (e.g., a conditional limitation; extra-solution activity constituting mere data gathering); “sending the modified position information… to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine” (e.g., a conditional limitation; extra-solution activity constituting mere data gathering); and “a control device” (e.g., understood to be a generic computing component equivalent to reciting the words “apply it”).
The above identified limitations are additional elements which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are equivalent to updating a database or updating an activity log. Accordingly, 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.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “modifying the received position information by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the obtained expected predefined position of the throttle lever,” amounts to extra-solution activity classified as mere data gathering. The MPEP states “examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:… v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP 2106.05(g)). As drafted, the limitation does not actually require that the information is expressly used to adjust the operation of the plane. Rather, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation can be understood to merely require that information in a database of system is updated. For example “modifying the received position information,” is not the same as requiring a physical adjustment of the throttle from a first position to a second position. Extra-solution activity which is further classified as mere data gathering (e.g., classified as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. In addition to the foregoing, and as addressed in the Response to Arguments above, the limitation “modifying the received position information,” in a conditional limitation which is not required to occur in order for the claim the be fully performed.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “sending the modified position information… to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine,” amounts to extra-solution activity which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. The MPEP states “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);… OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).” As drafted, the limitations do not require that the modified position information is actually used by the controller to physically adjust the throttle, but rather, that the data is merely sent to the controller. For example, the claim further includes the limitation “wherein the control device control the propulsion engine via controlling the throttle,” which merely functions to describe how the control device may operate, but does not explicitly require that the controlling steps are taken. Extra-solution activity which is further classified as well-understood, routine, or conventional amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity which cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. In addition to the foregoing, and as addressed in the Response to Arguments above, the limitation is linked to the conditional limitation related to “modifying the received position information,” such that the execution of the limitations is not required in order for the claim the be performed.
The control device, identified above, constitutes an additional element insofar as it is understood to be a generic computing component. However, merely using a generic computing component to perform what would otherwise be considered an abstract idea amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception as discussed in MPEP 2016.05(f). Moreover, as claimed, the computing element is merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claim 2—4 function to further define how abstract idea of “determining that a predefined situation… is encounter,” is performed. The limitations, which amount to describing how the data can be classified in the process of making the determination recited in claim 1, do not provide for a practical application of the abstract idea because they do not provide for significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, classifying data according to an algorithmic structure is abstract in itself.
Under the broadest reasonably interpretation, the limitations of claim 5 are understood to be directed to updating a dataset, rather than physically adjusting a throttle. For example, “carrying out a first modification of the position information by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the predefined position,” can be achieved by merely updating/modifying a dataset for the same reasons as described with regards to the additional elements of claims 1 and 6. For the foregoing reasons, the limitations of claim 5 do not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
The limitations of claims 7 and 9 merely require the inclusion of generic computing components capable of performing the limitations of claim 6 and claim 1, respectively, where the computing element is merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception.
Examiner note: As currently drafted, the limitations of claims 1 and 6, which include updating a dataset and sending information to a controller, fall short of positively reciting limitations which require the controller to actually implement the adjustment associated with the data. For the reasons provided above, the limitations do not reach the threshold for showing a practical application. However, the inclusion of a limitation which requires/positively recites a physical adjustment of the throttle from a first position to a second position, where the first position and the second position are not the same position, would be beneficial in overcoming the above cited rejection to claims 1 and 6.
The current limitations directed to the application are drafted such that they are conditional rather than required to perform the claim. These limitations should be amended such that they are required to be performed in all scenarios of the claim. Additionally, in order to adequately show a practical application according to the amendments provided, the claim should positively recite that the throttle is moved from a first position to a second position based on the determination from the abstract idea. The claims cannot merely state that data is sent to the control device with a limitation related to how the engine would be controlled. The specific limitations directed to the engine control (e.g., moving the throttle) should be positively recited as a direct outcome of the application of the judicial exception.
With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, it may be beneficial to set up a telephonic interview in order to discuss the rejection of the claims and identify an amendment to overcome the rejection of the claims. The Examiner is generally interested in conducting any interview which will function to advance prosecution regardless of whether a previous interview has been conducted or if a Final Rejection has already been issued.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1—3, 6—7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Johnson et al., hereinafter “Johnson,” (US 20220406201 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Nikolic et al., hereinafter “Nikolic” (US 20210034053 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses [a] method for selective automated modification of position information for a throttle lever associated with an aircraft propulsion engine (Abstract, “[m]ethods and systems are provided for assisting operation of a vehicle by automatically initiating activation of an automated functionality, such as autoland functionality of an aircraft, in the absence of user input within one or more monitoring periods.”; para. [0038], “In various embodiments, responsive to automated activation of the autoland functionality, the FCS 38 automatically activates the AT 44 and AP 42 functions, and the controller architecture 12 begins the begins commanding the AP 42 and AT 44 to land the aircraft.” Examiner notes that AT 44 is the autothrottle system and AP 42 is the autoflight system as stated in para. [0024]), the method comprising:
determining that a predefined situation from a list of predefined situations is encountered (a flight phase event and/or an emergency event which is monitored by the pilot incapacitation monitoring process which includes flight time-based monitoring 202 and/or emergency event monitoring 204; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality… As depicted in FIG. 2 , exemplary embodiments of the pilot incapacitation monitoring process concurrently perform phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), emergency event monitoring (step 204) and nominal event monitoring (step 206) in parallel. ”) when a flight condition associated with the predefined situation is verified (para. [0041], “the pilot incapacitation monitoring process automatically begins monitoring (step 200) each flight once the aircraft has climbed above a minimum threshold altitude for enabling the autoland functionality (alternatively referred to as a minimum armed height (MAH)) and automatically stops monitoring each flight when the aircraft descends below that threshold.” Examiner notes the flight condition is verified when the aircraft is above the minimum armed height), with each of the predefined situations representing a different flight situation in which actuating the throttle lever is deemed necessary (para. [0042], “[f]or phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), the pilot incapacitation monitoring process monitors for various different types of pilot interactions or behaviors with respect to the flight deck to detect when the pilot fails to interact with one of the monitored parts of the flight deck within a monitoring time period that is specific to the current flight phase of the aircraft.”; para. [0043] “[a] non-exhaustive list of pilot behavior or parts of the flight deck that may be monitored using a flight phase-specific threshold monitoring time period may include… hardware controllers that may be monitored for interaction include one or more of the autopilot quick disconnect button (AP QD)… throttle quadrant assembly (TQA), takeoff/go around (TOGA) button, autothrottle (AT) engage/disengage button, autothrottle quick disconnect button (AT QD)…”; Examiner notes there are situations within both the normal flight phases handled by time-based flight monitoring 202 and the emergency event monitoring 204 where adjusting the throttle is necessary);
obtaining, for the encountered predefined situation (para. [0041], “exemplary embodiments of the pilot incapacitation monitoring process concurrently perform phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), emergency event monitoring (step 204) and nominal event monitoring (step 206) in parallel”; the predefined situations are those analyzed in the flight time-based monitoring and the emergency event monitoring), a category associated with the encountered predefined situation (the monitoring process is broken into various categories including at least flight time-based monitoring and emergency event monitoring. Each of these categories include algorithms which receive data and are is used in determining whether or not the autopilot should be engaged. In some situations these scenarios overlap and/or are used in combination as described in para. [0062]), with the encountered predefined situation being associated with a category (as provided above, the various monitoring algorithms are used in assessing whether the pilot is unresponsive/incapacitated or if there is an emergency such that the autopilot has to take control of the plane; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.”) from among predefined categories (the categories and their associated analysis are predefined as described in at least para. [0044] and [0062] with respect to an emergency event and para. [0053] regarding the pilot incapacity assessment) and each of the categories representing a predefined piloting context (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “predefined piloting context” constitutes any situation related to the piloting of an aircraft. The claim does not recite any limitations which narrow the scope of this term such that it requires a more specific reading. As such, all of the assessments related to determining whether the autopilot needs to take over the operation of the plane, including assessing the responsiveness of the pilot and whether an emergency is occurring, are associated with a predefined piloting context);
obtaining a predefined activation duration (monitoring period) associated with the encountered predefined situation (para. [0052], “when the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 is triggered by crossing a minimum altitude threshold or a change in flight phase, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 identifies the current flight phase of the aircraft as triggering the incapacity monitoring and identifies the monitoring period threshold associated with the current flight phase (e.g., using a lookup table or the like). In this regard, the monitoring period threshold may vary depending on the flight phase of the aircraft to reflect anticipated increases and/or decreases in pilot activity based on the changes in expected pilot workload with respect to flight phase.”); and
assessing a validity condition associated with the obtained category (determining whether or not the pilot is incapacitated based on the metrics associated with the different categories; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.” para. [0053], “[i]n the absence of a user input at one of the monitored onboard components or systems, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 detects or otherwise identifies when the elapsed time associated with the timer (or the current value of the timer) is greater than the identified monitoring period threshold associated with the triggering event (task 608). When no user input is detected at one of the monitored onboard components or systems within the identified monitoring period threshold, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 generates or otherwise provides output that indicates a potential pilot incapacity condition (task 610); para. [0044], “based on the expectation that a non-incapacitated pilot would respond to occurrence of the emergency event, the emergency event threshold time period for monitoring may be of shorter duration than the flight phase threshold monitoring time period, for which phase of flight time-based monitoring may be being performed concurrently. For example, the pilot incapacitation monitoring process may be configured to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after the aircraft levels off following an emergency descent. Other example events that may trigger or otherwise initiate an emergency event threshold time period for monitoring may include excess tactile feedback activation (e.g., to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after a threshold number of tactile user inputs within a preceding time period) or a failure to acknowledge an alert that requires the pilot press a master warning/master caution button within a threshold period of time. As another example, an emergency event threshold time period may be triggered, initiated or otherwise activated when a potential stall is detected (e.g., to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after a stall warning or a stall condition).”);
Additionally, Johnson discloses transferring custody of the flight operation from the pilot to the autopilot when the flight condition associated with the encountered predefined situation (the flight condition is verified when the aircraft is above the minimum armed height) and the validity condition of the category associated with the encountered predefined situation are simultaneously verified (the categories are directed to determining whether or not the plane should engage the autopilot for a first duration at least equal to said obtained predefined activation duration (if pilot action is not taken within the monitoring period, the autopilot takes over the operation of the plane; Abstract, “[m]ethods and systems are provided for assisting operation of a vehicle by automatically initiating activation of an automated functionality, such as autoland functionality of an aircraft, in the absence of user input within one or more monitoring periods.”; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.”).
As provided above, Johnson discloses utilizing a pilot incapacitation monitoring system in conjunction with an autopilot in order to determine when custody of the plane should be transferred to the autopilot in the event of an emergency or an unresponsive pilot. For example, Johnson at para. [0019] states “the subject matter described herein provides pilot incapacitation monitoring methods and systems for automatically and autonomously activating the autoland functionality without requiring involvement of any onboard passengers to activate the autoland functionality.” The focus of the disclosure of Johnson is on the pilot incapacitation monitoring process rather the details of how the autopilot system functions. Additionally, autopilot and automatic flight control systems are well-known in the prior art as addressed below in Nikolic and in the additional art cited at the bottom of this Office Action. As such, Johnson may not explicitly disclose the limitations directed to the operation of the autopilot features, as italicized below, including:
receiving position information representing a current position of the throttle lever;
obtaining a predefined activation duration associated with the encountered predefined situation and an expected predefined position of the throttle lever in the encountered predefined situation;
modifying the received position information, by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the obtained expected predefined position of the throttle lever, when the flight condition associated with the encountered predefined situation and the validity condition of the category associated with the encountered predefined situation are simultaneously verified for a first duration at least equal to said obtained predefined activation duration; and
sending the modified position information in the event of a modification, and the received position information otherwise, to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine, wherein the control device controls the propulsion engine via controlling the throttle from a first position to a second position based on the modified position information or the received position information.
Nikolic, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to an airplane crew monitoring system which may trigger the autopilot to fly the plane under certain conditions (e.g., see Nikolic, para. [0022]), teaches the above identified deficiencies. For example, Nikolic teaches:
receiving position information representing a current position of the throttle lever (para. [0025], “[t]he flight management system shown in FIG. 1 further includes a control panel 2 which transmits commands to the autoflight computer 6 via a control output processor 4. The electrical signals representing these commands are generated in response to the pilot contacting and manipulating various control devices, such as knobs, wheels, levers and buttons, which are incorporated in the control panel 2.” Autoflight computer 6 receives the throttle position from the control panel 2);
obtaining… an expected predefined position of the throttle lever in the encountered predefined situation (Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”)… The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” Examiner notes that, in order for an autopilot to take over according to a “current flight plan,” a current flight plan, including throttle positions, would have to both 1.) exist and 2.) be obtained by the autopilot. Furthermore, the flight control system 8 including autoflight computer 6 would be able to access the flight plan in order to fly the plane in accordance with Nikolic. For example, Nikolic at para. [0024] states “[m]odern aircraft may employ a flight management system. FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating one example of a flight management system that includes an autoflight computer 6 configured (e.g., programmed) to send commands for controlling the state of various hardware components of a flight control system 8. Based on preprogrammed instructions and/or commands, the autoflight computer 6 produces commands, which are sent to one or more flight control computers of the flight control system 8. A flight control computer is configured to issue control signals for controlling the speed and direction of the aircraft in a well-known manner… Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight controls as they change speed. These operating mechanism components include, for example, roll, pitch and autothrottle control actuators (not shown). The control actuators may include any suitable actuators for controlling the roll, pitch and autothrottle of an aircraft.”);
modifying the received position information, by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the obtained expected predefined position of the throttle lever (Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”) and locks out pilot manual control inputs. The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” para. [0023], “the autopilot is in the form of computer code executed by an autoflight computer. The autoflight computer sends commands to one or more flight control computers, which in turn control the flight control surfaces to move in a manner to maintain the aircraft on the chosen trajectory… The autoflight computer may also execute an autothrottle function that commands the engines to maintain a target airspeed without straying outside the flight envelope.”; para. [0028], “[t]he autopilot function of the autoflight computer 6 can control the subsequent flight path of the aircraft based upon a route that is either predetermined or calculated by the automatic control processor 20 or that is provided to the automatic control processor 20 from an offboard location as described below.” Examiner notes, the autopilot of Nikolic takes over the plane and modifies the throttle position to fly the plane), when [conditions met to engage autopilot to fly plane] (para. [0003], “a crew alertness monitor function is available on some aircrafts that monitors inputs to the flight deck controls and generates an alert after a preset period of time has elapsed with no pilot inputs detected.”; para. [0022], “[t]he technology proposed herein may be used to monitor and assess the real-time actual performance data of pilots during flight and then take automated remedial action to remove control authority from an incapacitated pilot.”); and
sending the modified position information in the event of a modification, and the received position information otherwise, to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine (para. [0023], “the autopilot is in the form of computer code executed by an autoflight computer. The autoflight computer sends commands to one or more flight control computers, which in turn control the flight control surfaces to move in a manner to maintain the aircraft on the chosen trajectory… The autoflight computer may also execute an autothrottle function that commands the engines to maintain a target airspeed without straying outside the flight envelope.”; Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”)… The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” Whether the current flight plan or a modified flight plan is used, the throttle control is operated through the autopilot and performs the limitations of the claim), wherein the control device controls the propulsion engine via controlling the throttle (para. [0024] “[a] flight control computer is configured to issue control signals for controlling the speed and direction of the aircraft in a well-known manner… Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight controls as they change speed. These operating mechanism components include, for example, roll, pitch and autothrottle control actuators (not shown).”) from a first position to a second position based on the modified position information or the received position information (Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”) and locks out pilot manual control inputs. The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.”; para. [0028], “[t]he autopilot function of the autoflight computer 6 can control the subsequent flight path of the aircraft based upon a route that is either predetermined or calculated by the automatic control processor 20 or that is provided to the automatic control processor 20 from an offboard location as described below.”; As described above, the autopilot of Nikolic takes over the operation of flying the plane such that any signals related to the throttle are received by the autopilot and any adjustments made to the throttle are managed and performed by the autopilot (e.g., by issuing signals).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically recited autopilot feature and functionality of Johnson with the specific autopilot features and functionality of Nikolic. Both of Johnson and Nikolic are solving the similar problem of analyzing pilot performance and/or identifying emergency events and transferring custody of the plane to an autopilot in the event a threshold is reached. As such, the autopilot would function the same in Nikolic as it would in Johnson and therefore render the predictable result of an autopilot which can fly the plane. Moreover, the disclosure of Nikolic indicates that the features of the autopilot which are substituted into Johnson, as provided above, are well known and/or common.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson modified by Nikolic teaches wherein the predefined categories comprise a first category having a verified validity condition when a crew is previously declared unfit (Johnson, para. [0053], “[w]hen no user input is detected at one of the monitored onboard components or systems within the identified monitoring period threshold, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 generates or otherwise provides output that indicates a potential pilot incapacity condition (task 610).” Lack of response to the metrics associated with assessing whether the pilot is incapacitated or not results in the determination that the pilot is incapacitated. See para. [0052]), and wherein the activation duration, associated with each first category predefined situation, is zero (Johnson, para. [0053], “the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 may provide one or more output signals to an automated autoland activation process that automatically initiates activation of autoland functionality.”; para. [0038], “responsive to automated activation of the autoland functionality, the FCS 38 automatically activates the AT 44 and AP 42 functions, and the controller architecture 12 begins the begins commanding the AP 42 and AT 44 to land the aircraft.” Once the pilot is determined to be incapacitated, the autoland functionality takes over the plane.).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson modified by Nikolic teaches wherein the predefined categories comprise a second category having a verified validity condition when a crew is not previously declared unfit (Johnson, para. [0053], “the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 continues by initiating a timer or similar feature and monitoring one or more components onboard the aircraft for a user input within the identified monitoring period threshold (tasks 604, 606). In this regard, when a user input is received at one of the monitored onboard components or systems, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 detects pilot activity and reinitiates the timer (task 604).”), and wherein the activation duration, associated with each second category predefined situation, depends on the predefined situation (Johnson, para. [0052], “the monitoring period threshold may vary depending on the flight phase of the aircraft to reflect anticipated increases and/or decreases in pilot activity based on the changes in expected pilot workload with respect to flight phase. When the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 is triggered by an emergency event or a nominal event, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 identifies the monitoring period threshold associated with the particular type of event (e.g., using a lookup table or the like).”).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses [a] device for the selective automated modification of position information for a throttle lever of an aircraft propulsion engine (flight guidance system 10 including controller architecture 12 and automatic throttle/”AT” system 44; see para. [0023]—[0026] and para. [0037]—[0038]), the automated selective modification device comprising electronic circuitry configured to receive position information representing a current position of the throttle lever (the components of flight guidance system 10 including autopilot 42 and autothrottle 44 are in electronic communication with controller architecture 12 as depicted in FIG. 1), the automated selective modification device being characterized in that it comprises electronic circuitry configured for:
determining that a predefined situation from a list of predefined situations is encountered (a flight phase event and/or an emergency event which is monitored by the pilot incapacitation monitoring process which includes flight time-based monitoring 202 and/or emergency event monitoring 204; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality… As depicted in FIG. 2 , exemplary embodiments of the pilot incapacitation monitoring process concurrently perform phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), emergency event monitoring (step 204) and nominal event monitoring (step 206) in parallel. ”) when a flight condition associated with the predefined situation is verified (para. [0041], “the pilot incapacitation monitoring process automatically begins monitoring (step 200) each flight once the aircraft has climbed above a minimum threshold altitude for enabling the autoland functionality (alternatively referred to as a minimum armed height (MAH)) and automatically stops monitoring each flight when the aircraft descends below that threshold.” Examiner notes the flight condition is verified when the aircraft is above the minimum armed height), with each of the predefined situations representing a different flight situation in which actuating the throttle lever is deemed necessary (para. [0042], “[f]or phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), the pilot incapacitation monitoring process monitors for various different types of pilot interactions or behaviors with respect to the flight deck to detect when the pilot fails to interact with one of the monitored parts of the flight deck within a monitoring time period that is specific to the current flight phase of the aircraft.”; para. [0043] “[a] non-exhaustive list of pilot behavior or parts of the flight deck that may be monitored using a flight phase-specific threshold monitoring time period may include… hardware controllers that may be monitored for interaction include one or more of the autopilot quick disconnect button (AP QD)… throttle quadrant assembly (TQA), takeoff/go around (TOGA) button, autothrottle (AT) engage/disengage button, autothrottle quick disconnect button (AT QD)…”; Examiner notes there are situations within both the normal flight phases handled by time-based flight monitoring 202 and the emergency event monitoring 204 where adjusting the throttle is necessary);
obtaining, for the encountered predefined situation (para. [0041], “exemplary embodiments of the pilot incapacitation monitoring process concurrently perform phase of flight time-based monitoring (step 202), emergency event monitoring (step 204) and nominal event monitoring (step 206) in parallel”; the predefined situations are those analyzed in the flight time-based monitoring and the emergency event monitoring), a category associated with the encountered predefined situation (the monitoring process is broken into various categories including at least flight time-based monitoring and emergency event monitoring. Each of these categories include algorithms which receive data and are is used in determining whether or not the autopilot should be engaged. In some situations these scenarios overlap and/or are used in combination as described in para. [0062]), with the encountered predefined situation being associated with a category (as provided above, the various monitoring algorithms are used in assessing whether the pilot is unresponsive/incapacitated or if there is an emergency such that the autopilot has to take control of the plane; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.”) from among predefined categories (the categories and their associated analysis are predefined as described in at least para. [0044] and [0062] with respect to an emergency event and para. [0053] regarding the pilot incapacity assessment) and each of the categories representing a predefined piloting context (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “predefined piloting context” constitutes any situation related to the piloting of an aircraft. The claim does not recite any limitations which narrow the scope of this term such that it requires a more specific reading. As such, all of the assessments related to determining whether the autopilot needs to take over the operation of the plane, including assessing the responsiveness of the pilot and whether an emergency is occurring, are associated with a predefined piloting context); and
obtaining a predefined activation duration (monitoring period) associated with the encountered predefined situation (para. [0052], “when the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 is triggered by crossing a minimum altitude threshold or a change in flight phase, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 identifies the current flight phase of the aircraft as triggering the incapacity monitoring and identifies the monitoring period threshold associated with the current flight phase (e.g., using a lookup table or the like). In this regard, the monitoring period threshold may vary depending on the flight phase of the aircraft to reflect anticipated increases and/or decreases in pilot activity based on the changes in expected pilot workload with respect to flight phase.”);
assessing a validity condition associated with the obtained category (determining whether or not the pilot is incapacitated based on the metrics associated with the different categories; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.” para. [0053], “[i]n the absence of a user input at one of the monitored onboard components or systems, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 detects or otherwise identifies when the elapsed time associated with the timer (or the current value of the timer) is greater than the identified monitoring period threshold associated with the triggering event (task 608). When no user input is detected at one of the monitored onboard components or systems within the identified monitoring period threshold, the pilot incapacity monitoring process 600 generates or otherwise provides output that indicates a potential pilot incapacity condition (task 610); para. [0044], “based on the expectation that a non-incapacitated pilot would respond to occurrence of the emergency event, the emergency event threshold time period for monitoring may be of shorter duration than the flight phase threshold monitoring time period, for which phase of flight time-based monitoring may be being performed concurrently. For example, the pilot incapacitation monitoring process may be configured to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after the aircraft levels off following an emergency descent. Other example events that may trigger or otherwise initiate an emergency event threshold time period for monitoring may include excess tactile feedback activation (e.g., to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after a threshold number of tactile user inputs within a preceding time period) or a failure to acknowledge an alert that requires the pilot press a master warning/master caution button within a threshold period of time. As another example, an emergency event threshold time period may be triggered, initiated or otherwise activated when a potential stall is detected (e.g., to detect potential incapacity when there is no pilot activity within a time period after a stall warning or a stall condition).”);
Additionally, Johnson discloses transferring custody of the flight operation from the pilot to the autopilot when the flight condition associated with the encountered predefined situation (the flight condition is verified when the aircraft is above the minimum armed height) and the validity condition of the category associated with the encountered predefined situation are simultaneously verified (the categories are directed to determining whether or not the plane should engage the autopilot for a first duration at least equal to said obtained predefined activation duration (if pilot action is not taken within the monitoring period, the autopilot takes over the operation of the plane; Abstract, “[m]ethods and systems are provided for assisting operation of a vehicle by automatically initiating activation of an automated functionality, such as autoland functionality of an aircraft, in the absence of user input within one or more monitoring periods.”; para. [0041], “[w]hile the monitoring is active, the pilot incapacitation monitoring processes concurrently monitors for interactions with the flight deck within different, overlapping monitoring periods corresponding to different potential triggering events for activating the autoland functionality. In this regard, absence of pilot activity within the monitoring period following a triggering event may be indicative of a potential incapacity condition of the pilot for which autoland functionality should be activated.”)
As provided above, Johnson discloses utilizing a pilot incapacitation monitoring system in conjunction with an autopilot in order to determine when custody of the plane should be transferred to the autopilot in the event of an emergency or an unresponsive pilot. For example, Johnson at para. [0019] states “the subject matter described herein provides pilot incapacitation monitoring methods and systems for automatically and autonomously activating the autoland functionality without requiring involvement of any onboard passengers to activate the autoland functionality.” The focus of the disclosure of Johnson is on the pilot incapacitation monitoring process rather the details of how the autopilot system functions. Additionally, autopilot and automatic flight control systems are well-known in the prior art as addressed below in Nikolic and in the additional art cited at the bottom of this Office Action. As such, Johnson may not explicitly disclose the limitations directed to the operation of the autopilot features including:
receiving position information representing a current position of the throttle lever;
obtaining a predefined activation duration associated with the encountered predefined situation and an expected predefined position of the throttle lever in the encountered predefined situation;
modifying the received position information, by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the obtained expected predefined position of the throttle lever, when the flight condition associated with the encountered predefined situation and the validity condition of the category associated with the encountered predefined situation are simultaneously verified for a first duration at least equal to said obtained predefined activation duration; and
sending the modified position information in the event of a modification, and the received position information otherwise, to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine.
Nikolic, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to an airplane crew monitoring system which may trigger the autopilot to fly the plane under certain conditions (e.g., see Nikolic, para. [0022]), teaches the above identified deficiencies.
For example, Nikolic teaches:
obtaining… an expected predefined position of the throttle lever in the encountered predefined situation (Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”)… The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” Examiner notes that, in order for an autopilot to take over according to a “current flight plan,” a current flight plan, including throttle positions, would have to both 1.) exist and 2.) be obtained by the autopilot. Furthermore, the flight control system 8 including autoflight computer 6 would be able to access the flight plan in order to fly the plane in accordance with Nikolic. For example, Nikolic at para. [0024] states “[m]odern aircraft may employ a flight management system. FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating one example of a flight management system that includes an autoflight computer 6 configured (e.g., programmed) to send commands for controlling the state of various hardware components of a flight control system 8. Based on preprogrammed instructions and/or commands, the autoflight computer 6 produces commands, which are sent to one or more flight control computers of the flight control system 8. A flight control computer is configured to issue control signals for controlling the speed and direction of the aircraft in a well-known manner… Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight controls as they change speed. These operating mechanism components include, for example, roll, pitch and autothrottle control actuators (not shown). The control actuators may include any suitable actuators for controlling the roll, pitch and autothrottle of an aircraft.”);
modifying the received position information, by replacing the current position of the throttle lever with the obtained expected predefined position of the throttle lever (Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”) and locks out pilot manual control inputs. The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” para. [0023], “the autopilot is in the form of computer code executed by an autoflight computer. The autoflight computer sends commands to one or more flight control computers, which in turn control the flight control surfaces to move in a manner to maintain the aircraft on the chosen trajectory… The autoflight computer may also execute an autothrottle function that commands the engines to maintain a target airspeed without straying outside the flight envelope.”; para. [0028], “[t]he autopilot function of the autoflight computer 6 can control the subsequent flight path of the aircraft based upon a route that is either predetermined or calculated by the automatic control processor 20 or that is provided to the automatic control processor 20 from an offboard location as described below.” Examiner notes, the autopilot of Nikolic takes over the plane and modifies the throttle position to fly the plane), when [conditions met to engage autopilot to fly plane] (para. [0003], “a crew alertness monitor function is available on some aircrafts that monitors inputs to the flight deck controls and generates an alert after a preset period of time has elapsed with no pilot inputs detected.”; para. [0022], “[t]he technology proposed herein may be used to monitor and assess the real-time actual performance data of pilots during flight and then take automated remedial action to remove control authority from an incapacitated pilot.”); and
sending the modified position information in the event of a modification, and the received position information otherwise, to a control device for controlling the propulsion engine (para. [0023], “the autopilot is in the form of computer code executed by an autoflight computer. The autoflight computer sends commands to one or more flight control computers, which in turn control the flight control surfaces to move in a manner to maintain the aircraft on the chosen trajectory… The autoflight computer may also execute an autothrottle function that commands the engines to maintain a target airspeed without straying outside the flight envelope.”; Nikolic para. [0024] “[a] flight control computer is configured to issue control signals for controlling the speed and direction of the aircraft in a well-known manner… Aircraft engine controls are also considered as flight controls as they change speed. These operating mechanism components include, for example, roll, pitch and autothrottle control actuators (not shown).”; Nikolic, para. [0022], “an onboard processor automatically expands the control authority of the autopilot function/module (hereinafter “autopilot”)… The autopilot may execute either a current or a contingency flight plan while the ongoing condition of the pilot is evaluated.” Whether the current flight plan or a modified flight plan is used, the throttle control is operated through the autopilot and performs the limitations of the claim; para. [0028], “[t]he autopilot function of the autoflight computer 6 can control the subsequent flight path of the aircraft based upon a route that is either predetermined or calculated by the automatic control processor 20 or that is provided to the automatic control processor 20 from an offboard location as described below.”; As described above, the autopilot of Nikolic takes over the operation of flying the plane such that any signals related to the throttle are received by the autopilot and any adjustments made to the throttle are managed and performed by the autopilot (e.g., by issuing signals).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically recited autopilot feature and functionality of Johnson with the specific autopilot features and functionality of Nikolic. Both of Johnson and Nikolic are solving the similar problem of analyzing pilot performance and/or identifying emergency events and transferring custody of the plane to an autopilot in the event a threshold is reached. As such, the autopilot would function the same in Nikolic as it would in Johnson and therefore render the predictable result of an autopilot which can fly the plane. Moreover, the disclosure of Nikolic indicates that the features of the autopilot which are substituted into Johnson, as provided above, are well known and/or common.
Regarding claim 7, Johnson as modified by Nikolic teaches [a]n aircraft comprising an automated selective modification device according to Claim 6 (both of Johnson and Nikolic teach monitoring systems used in an airplane. For example, Johnson at para. [0009] states “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a guidance system suitable for use with a vehicle such as an aircraft in accordance with one or more exemplary embodiments.”).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson as modified by Nikolic teaches [a] non-transitory storage medium (Johnson, memory 16, para. [0029], “[m]emory 16 can encompass any number and type of storage media suitable for storing computer-readable code or instructions, such as the aforementioned software program, as well as other data generally supporting the operation of flight guidance system 10.”), storing a computer program comprising instructions causing a processor to execute the method according to claim 1, when said instructions are read and executed by the processor (Johnson, para. [0029], “[m]emory 16 may also store the software program 46 and/or one or more threshold values, as generically represented by box 30. In various embodiments, the controller architecture 12 has integrated therein suitable memory for processing calculations and for storing the software program 46 and/or the thresholds 30.” See also para. [0050]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Johnson et al., hereinafter “Johnson,” (US 20220406201 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Nikolic et al., hereinafter “Nikolic” (US20210034053 A1) as applied above to claim 1 and in further view of Published US Patent Application to Mast et al., hereinafter “Mast” (US 20210287560 A1) .
Regarding claim 4, Johnson as para. [0060] discloses “[t]he adaptive monitoring process 800 begins by identifying or otherwise determining the monitoring period threshold for inactivity based on the current phase of flight or other operational status of the aircraft (task 802).” Johnson further discloses “In response to detecting occurrence of a triggering event, the adaptive monitoring process 800 identifies, obtains, or otherwise determines a scaling factor associated with the detected triggering event and then dynamically adjusts or otherwise reduces the currently active phase of flight-based activity monitoring period using the scaling factor associated with the detected triggering event (tasks 810, 812)… the scaling factors associated with emergency events are less than the scaling factors associated with nominal events to facilitate more aggressive reductions to the current activity monitoring period in response to emergency events relative to nominal events, which are less likely to be an emergency or correlative with pilot incapacity.” (Johnson, para. [0062]). As such Johnson clearly contemplated adjusting the response duration in accordance with the severity of scenario. However, Johnson may not explicitly disclose the predefined categories comprise a third category having an always verified validity condition, and wherein the activation duration, associated with each third category predefined situation, is zero.
Published US Patent Application to Mast, which is directed to automated flight guidance and flight control systems including assist-to-land functions and emergency land (“EL”) functions, teaches the deficient limitations. For example, Mast teaches “the system 10 may make the EL determination responsive to detecting a problem based on input from on-board sensors, such as, responsive to detecting a cabin depressurization that has met a minimum pressure threshold.” (Mast, para. [0047]). As such, Mast teaches a scenario where an emergency scenario alone (e.g., cabin pressure below a minimum threshold) triggers an assist to land function. Mast further teaches “responsive to activation of the assist-to-land function, the controller architecture 12 actively controlling the AP 42 and AT 46 to land the aircraft at the selected airport, in accordance with the assist-to-land flight plan; this may include generating commands for aircraft systems, as necessary, to level the aircraft while the flight plan is being updated.” (Mast, para. [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the emergency landing protocol of Mast, where the initiation of the protocol is based on a specific emergency metric, into the pilot monitoring protocol of Johnson where both systems work the same separately as they do in combination and where the combination would provide the predictable result of initiating autonomous control by a controller architecture to land a plane in the event that an emergency situation is identified.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Johnson et al., hereinafter “Johnson,” (US 20220406201 A1) and Published US Patent Application to Nikolic et al., hereinafter “Nikolic” (US20210034053 A1).
Johnson as modified by Nikolic may not explicitly teach the limitations as recited in claim 5; however, Johnson discloses a flight guidance system 10 including controller architecture 12 an autothrottle system (“AT”) 44. The flight guidance system 10 is capable of generating a flight plan to autonomously navigate a plane to an airport and subsequently land the plane as described in para. [0038]—[0040] of Johnson. Likewise, Nikolic teaches an autopilot that can modify the throttle, as described above, in order to fly the plane according to a multitude of flight plans including a current plan, an emergency plan, or a plan uploaded from a control tower. It would be obvious for the autothrottle systems of either autopilot to make as many adjustments as necessary in accordance with the flight plan as generated by the controller architecture 12. Notably, the flight plan of Johnson includes identifying an airport to land at, navigating to the airport, and landing the plane where “the controller architecture 12 manages the speed.” (Johnson, para. [0039]). As such, modifying the position of the throttle one or more times (e.g., including two adjustments as recited in claim 5) would be obvious as a matter of design selection with respect to the emergency landing plan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Published US Patent Application to Hopp (US 20100036574 A1) which is directed to motor vehicles 100 including aircraft, teaches an automatically controlled throttle including a map which relates throttle position to engine speed. For example, para. [0084] states “[g]enerally, the determination of a required throttle position may be achieved in any known manner. In an embodiment, ECU 120 may access a map similar to the embodiment in FIG. 9 to determine a required throttle position to reach a required engine speed.”);
Published US Patent Application to Hu et al. (US 20190283862 A1) which teaches an emergency flight controller 14 which determines target throttle positions to control the plane in a desired manner including that of a pre-determined flight course. For example, Hu teaches “[u]sing the aircraft parameters received from the at least one aircraft sensor 20 and the pilot input received from the flight management system 13, the emergency flight controller 14 is configured to determine target throttle positions for each one of the aircraft engines and a target stabilizer position for the trimmable stabilizer for maneuvering the aircraft. For example, the emergency flight controller 14 may determine the target throttle positions and target stabilizer position for a desired maneuver input by the pilot to perform, such as a descent maneuver, a climb maneuver, and so on. In an embodiment, the emergency flight controller 14 is configured to determine instructions to the pilot to maneuver the aircraft according to an original pre-determined flight course stored in the flight management system 13.” (Hu, para, [0034]);
Published US Patent Application to Hedrick (US 20190047715 A1) which teaches an autothrottle controlling the plane without pilot input in a similar manner as automatic adjustment made in the instant application. For example, Hedrick teaches “[i]f the position of throttle lever 12 is not manually adjusted by the pilot in response to the alert, then the motor 26 of the inventive autothrottle arrangement 10 may under appropriate conditions be operated to adjust the position of the throttle lever (and thus retard the throttle) under control of the system 10, without pilot input and irrespective of whether the autothrottle system 10 had theretofore been operatively controlling the aircraft throttles, and thereby avoid or terminate the over-throttle condition of the operating engine.” (Hedrick, para. [0071]);
Published US Patent Application to Shaw (US 20150269860 A1) which teaches comparing actual throttle positions to desired throttle positions for the purposes of pilot training. For example, Shaw states “[i]n each case, a check of the deviation display element 204 after making a positional adjustment of the throttle control enables the pilot to compare the throttle position at any time t within the interval t.sub.0 to t.sub.f against a preferred throttle position as determined from stored empirical throttle controller position data recorded during prior flights by skilled pilots performing the same maneuver under similar conditions in a similar aircraft.” (Shaw, para. [0087]); and
Issued US Patent to McCusker et al. (US 9637133 B1) which teaches an autopilot 260 which actively controls the flight controls 272 and the autothrottle 274 in the event that a pilot does not respond to warnings from the warning system 282-286. See Col 9, Line 5 through Col. 11, Line 16 of McCusker.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights