DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE filled on 04/14/2026. Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are amended. Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-18 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215387 (“Yadav”), and in view of US 2022/0358696 (“Holder”), and further in view of US 2022/0327942 (“Lewis”).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claim 1), Yadav discloses a system for updating a flight plan for an aircraft (see at least fig 1 and [0026]), comprising:
a flight management system (FMS) (see at least [0025] and [0041], where pilot is using FMS), where the FMS includes a processing system to:
receive a flight plan (see at least [0004], where “method of providing multiple undo and redo operations for a flight plan in a flight management system”; undo and redo operations are conducted for a flight plan. The flight plan is given/received for performing undo and redo operations);
wherein, at the FMS, the flight plan is a reference flight plan, generate a clone of the reference flight plan (see at least [0025], where “At step 102, an active flight plan (e.g., the active flight plan 202 of FIGS. 2 through 13) is either created by a pilot or uses a default active flight plan. At step 104, a temporary flight plan (e.g., the temporary flight plan 206 of FIGS. 2 through 13) and a reference flight plan are created…The temporary flight plan includes a copy of the active flight plan and the initiated first revision. Further, the reference flight plan is a copy of the active flight plan (e.g., the copy of active flight plan 204 of FIGS. 2 through 13).”),
create a mutated clone (mutated clone is interpreted as variant or modified. see at least [0028], where “the pilot modifies the active flight plan 202 by performing a lateral revision”; see also [0003]);
visualize the mutated clone on a display (see at least [0028], where “FIG. 2 illustrates a display unit 200 displaying a flight plan, according to one embodiment. As shown, the display unit 200 displays an active flight plan 202, a copy of the active flight plan 204, a temporary flight plan 206, a list of pilot actions or a list of action plans 208 and an action pointer 210.”); and
automatically update the mutated clone (see at least [0028], where “when the pilot modifies the active flight plan 202 by performing a lateral revision "insert WOLF after TOE", the copy of the active flight plan 204 and the temporary flight plan 206 are created.”; see also fig 1, block 106, [0036] and [0005], where “multiple revisions”);
a control display unit (CDU) coupled to the FMS (see at least [0029], where “FIG. 3 illustrates a display unit 300 displaying the copy of the active flight plan 204 and the temporary flight plan 206.”), the CDU to:
receive a pilot activation of the mutated clone (see at least fig 3- fig 13; see also [0005], where “The display unit includes one or more action buttons for performing multiple undo and redo operations”; see also [0032]);
display the mutated clone on the CDU (see at least [0028]);
receive the pilot initiated variation of the mutated clone (see at least [0003-4], where pilot is initiating the process. see also [0005], where “The display unit includes one or more action buttons for performing multiple undo and redo operations”; see also fig 3- fig 13 and [0032]); and
update the display of the mutated clone to include (see at least [0027]).
Yadav does not disclose the following limitations:
a flight management system (FMS) located onboard the aircraft;
create a mutated clone by changing a mission parameter;
receive a mission variation to another mission parameter in the reference flight plan;
automatically update the mutated clone with the mission variation and a pilot initiated variation to the mutated clone; and
update…include the mission variation.
However, Holder discloses a system wherein a flight management system (FMS) located onboard the aircraft (see at least [0016], where “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary embodiment of a system 100 which may be located onboard a vehicle, such as an aircraft 102…The system 100 includes…a flight management system (FMS) 116,”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Holder by including the above feature for providing flight path adjustment quicker by having FMS onboard the aircraft.
Yadav in view of Holder does not disclose the following limitations:
create a mutated clone by changing a mission parameter;
receive a mission variation to another mission parameter in the reference flight plan;
automatically update the mutated clone with the mission variation and a pilot initiated variation to the mutated clone; and
update…include the mission variation.
However, Lewis discloses a system wherein create a mutated clone by changing a mission parameter (see at least fig 7, [0026], where “adjustments to altitudes, speeds, headings, and timings and locations for maneuvers may be quickly generated and implemented, via an on-board control system, for at least a portion of a flight path, in order to minimize sonic booms generated by such maneuvers, particularly where a change may occur at an upcoming location along the flight path”; see also [0039], where “a copy of the flight plan…receive updates to the flight plan”; altitude, speed, heading, timing and location are interpreted as mission parameters);
receive a mission variation to another mission parameter in the reference flight plan (see at least fig 3, where see also [0004], where “This is particularly true if a change occurs at one or more upcoming locations along a flight path, such as a change in weather or wind conditions, which could affect the boom values along the boom carpet as the vehicle performs such maneuvers. When such a change occurs, there is a need to quickly and efficiently regenerate at least a portion of the flight”; altitude, speed, heading, timing and location are interpreted as mission parameters. So, there are multiple changes in mission parameters);
automatically update the mutated clone with the mission variation and a pilot initiated variation to the mutated clone (see at least [0029] and [0031], where “the flight plan 200 may be updated before and/or during a flight of the vehicle 105, such as by an operator, e.g., a pilot, or based on user or system inputs to the FMS 130.”); and
update…include the mission variation (see at least [0029], [0031], [0039] and [0047]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yadav in view of Holder to incorporate the teachings of Lewis by including the above feature for providing updated flight path by adjusting flight parameters.
Regarding claim 11 (and similarly claim 2), Yadav further discloses a system wherein the CDU is to adopt the mutated clone as a modified reference flight plan (see at least [0003-4], where the reference flight plan is a copy of the active flight plan and revision is made on the copy of the active flight plan. modify existing route by doing revisions. See also [0028]).
Regarding claim 12 (and similarly claim 3), Yadav further discloses a system wherein the CDU is to adopt the mutated clone as a secondary flight plan ([0037] of PGPub of submitted specification describes a secondary flight plan is a reference plan. see at least Yadav [0025]).
Regarding claim 14 (and similarly claim 5), Lewis further discloses a system comprising receiving a down path or in flight change to the secondary flight plan and updating the reference flight plan based thereon (see at least [0029] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 16 (and similarly claim 7), Holder further discloses a system where the clone of the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in a flight altitude of the aircraft (see at least [0046]).
Regarding claim 17 (and similarly claim 8), Holder further discloses a system where the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in an element in a navigation database including a standard terminal arrival (STAR) for the arrival plan of the aircraft (see at least [0022]). Rejection relied on Yadav for clone of the reference flight plan, see citation above.
Regarding claim 18 (and similarly claim 9), Yadav discloses a system where the clone of the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes (see at least [0003], where pilot is modifying the route to new destination e.g., new runway). Holder further discloses a system where reflect changes in an element in a navigation database including a runway used by the aircraft (see at least [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Also, Applicant argues that “Applicants respectfully disagree, because the present embodiments describe the mutated clones as generated by the FMS without pilot initiation.”. The Examiner disagrees since the recited claim language does not mention that FMS generates clones without pilot initiation. The claim as recited may or may not require pilot activation for clones’ generation.
Also, Applicant argues that “While Schwindt discloses updating with a second set of flight parameters, those flight parameter updates are understood to be based on the first update to the flight plan, see, e.g., Schwindt FIG. 3, block 106 and block 110 and paragraph [0052], in which the pilot can accept or modify what was received, but the feedback loop of updating the original flight plan is not provided.”. The Examiner disagrees since the recited claim language does not require a feedback loop. The recited claim does not mention all the steps are sequential/chronological order.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights