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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they fail to disclose any of processes, machines, manufactures or compositions of matter. The claim recites a “computer readable medium” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification includes non-statutory transitory forms of computer readable medium such as a signal; the claim does not specify that the medium is non-transitory and the specification does not specifically exclude transitory mediums. Examiner notes that the claim may be amended to claim exclusively non-transitory computer readable mediums in order to overcome the rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth (US 20180364707), herein after referred to as Bosworth, in view of Righi (US 20120116610), herein after referred to as Righi.
Regarding Claim 1, Bosworth discloses:
automatically recording vehicle status data from one or more systems onboard the vehicle during operation of the vehicle in accordance with the automated functionality in a time ordered sequence (see at least [0060] “The core platform 102 may also contain a flight data recorder, for instance to provide performance review capability”)
and automatically generating an automation summary graphical user interface (GUI) display comprising the time ordered sequence of the vehicle status data (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
in response to activation of an automated functionality associated with the vehicle,
for a period of time after the activation of the automated functionality;
in response to deactivation of the automated functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi makes obvious:
in response to activation of an automated functionality associated with the vehicle, (see at least [Fig. 1A, item 102] [0028] “if a determination is made in block 102 that the aircraft is being controlled by the autopilot, the method 100 may advance to block 114. In block 114, flight parameters and cockpit or cabin environmental parameters may be monitored as well as any other parameters for detecting normal operation of the aircraft" [0031] "In block 118, a command override may be engaged and a command may be issued to the autopilot to control the aircraft.”)
for a period of time after the activation of the automated functionality; (see at least [] “ the aircraft being controlled by the auto pilot 224 or being in a command override mode in the event of incapacity of the flight crew" [0050] " The password to regain control of the aircraft may then be entered by operation of the keyboard or keypad feature 406 by a flight crew member.") (*Examiner interprets a command override mode as representing a period of time after the activation of automated functionality in which the vehicle is operating in a different control mode)
in response to deactivation of the automated functionality. (see at least [0035] “In block 128, a determination may be made if an acknowledgment was received and/or the correct security code or password was entered to regain control of the aircraft." [0036] "If a determination is made in block 128 and an acknowledgment or correct security code was received, the method 100 may return to block 104”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to take actions in response to activation of automated control, for the time duration of automated control, and in response to deactivation of automated control, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005]. As this autonomous control is a defined period in which aircraft control actions are performed in response to activation of automated control, for the time duration of automated control, and in response to deactivation of automated control, in combination with Bosworth it would be obvious to perform the actions of Bosworth but in response to the automated control as disclosed by Righi.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
on the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising providing a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the automated functionality (see at least [Fig. 3] [0047] “The reason detected for the current override may be highlighted in some manner to be distinguishable from the other reasons for possible command override when viewed by the flight crew.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to providing a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005]. As Bosworth discloses a system for logging the flight for future review and Righi determines, stores, and presents the data, in combination of Bosworth and Righi it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include this in the summary.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
providing graphical indicia of one or more navigational reference points traversed by the vehicle (see at least [0083] “"The human-machine interface 126 may communicate the status and/or details of various operations, including the entire aircrew automation system 100" [0086] the human-machine interface 126 may display an area map 326 with an icon 322 representing the current location of the aircraft along a flight path relative to its various waypoints 320. ”)
during the activation of the automated functionality on the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
As Bosworth discloses a system for logging the flight for future review, examiner considers it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention to include the information above in the post-flight review log.
Regarding Claim 9, Bosworth discloses:
automatically record vehicle status data from one or more systems onboard a vehicle during operation of the vehicle in accordance with an automated functionality associated with the vehicle … resulting in recorded vehicle status data in a time ordered sequence (see at least [0060] “The core platform 102 may also contain a flight data recorder, for instance to provide performance review capability”)
and automatically generate an automation summary graphical user interface (GUI) display comprising the time ordered sequence of the vehicle status data (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
in response to activation of an automated functionality associated with the vehicle,
for a period of time after the activation of the automated functionality;
in response to deactivation of the automated functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi makes obvious:
in response to activation of an automated functionality associated with the vehicle, (see at least [Fig. 1A, item 102] [0028] “if a determination is made in block 102 that the aircraft is being controlled by the autopilot, the method 100 may advance to block 114. In block 114, flight parameters and cockpit or cabin environmental parameters may be monitored as well as any other parameters for detecting normal operation of the aircraft" [0031] "In block 118, a command override may be engaged and a command may be issued to the autopilot to control the aircraft.”)
for a period of time after the activation of the automated functionality; (see at least [] “ the aircraft being controlled by the auto pilot 224 or being in a command override mode in the event of incapacity of the flight crew" [0050] " The password to regain control of the aircraft may then be entered by operation of the keyboard or keypad feature 406 by a flight crew member.") (*Examiner interprets a command override mode as representing a period of time after the activation of automated functionality in which the vehicle is operating in a different control mode)
in response to deactivation of the automated functionality. (see at least [0035] “In block 128, a determination may be made if an acknowledgment was received and/or the correct security code or password was entered to regain control of the aircraft." [0036] "If a determination is made in block 128 and an acknowledgment or correct security code was received, the method 100 may return to block 104”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to take actions in response to activation of automated control, for the time duration of automated control, and in response to deactivation of automated control, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005]. As this autonomous control is a defined period in which aircraft control actions are performed in response to activation of automated control, for the time duration of automated control, and in response to deactivation of automated control, in combination with Bosworth it would be obvious to make the Bosworth system capable of performing the actions in response to the automated control as disclosed by Righi.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein the vehicle comprises an aircraft and the automated functionality comprises an autoland functionality. (see at least [0122] “Therefore, the aircrew automation system 100 may be further configured to perform, during an emergency, a descent and landing procedure in an aircraft equipped with an auto-landing controller.”)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 12, and Bosworth further discloses:
the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ...GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the autoland functionality. (see at least [Fig. 3] [0047] “The reason detected for the current override may be highlighted in some manner to be distinguishable from the other reasons for possible command override when viewed by the flight crew.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to providing a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005]. As Bosworth discloses a system for logging the flight for future review and Righi determines, stores, and presents the data, in combination of Bosworth and Righi it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include this in the summary.
Regarding Claim 20, Bosworth discloses:
a flight management system (FMS) to provide autoland functionality for an aircraft; (see at least [0012] “ the aircrew automation system can be configured to perform an auto-landing procedure to land the aircraft.”)
one or more systems onboard the aircraft to provide status data associated with the aircraft; (see at least [0053] “ the aircrew automation system 100 may alternatively be integral with the aircraft's system, thereby directly employing all sensors and indicators in the airplane.”)
a display device; (see at least [0078] “The human-machine interface 126 may employ, for example, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a smart phone, head mounted display, or combination thereof.”)
and a processing system coupled to the display device, the FMS and the one or more systems (see at least [Fig. 1b] [0058] “the core platform 102 may employ a processor”)
to provide an automation summarization service configurable to: automatically record the status data from the one or more systems onboard the aircraft during operation of the aircraft in accordance with the autoland functionality in a time ordered sequence (see at least [0060] “The core platform 102 may also contain a flight data recorder, for instance to provide performance review capability" [0124] "The present aircrew automation system 100 may be configured to perform a specific auto-landing procedure for emergency descent and landing of an aircraft.”)
and automatically generate an automation summary graphical user interface (GUI) display on the display device … wherein the automation summary GUI display comprises a graphical indication of one or more automation events corresponding to the time ordered sequence of the status data. (see at least [Fig. 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
for a period of time after activation of the autoland functionality
in response to the activation of the autoland functionality;
in response to deactivation of the autoland functionality,
In the same field of endeavor, Righi discloses:
for a period of time after activation of the autoland functionality (see at least [0033] "In block 122, the auto pilot may initiate a controlled descent to the nearest landing site or airport. " [0045] “the aircraft being controlled by the auto pilot 224 or being in a command override mode in the event of incapacity of the flight crew" [0050] " The password to regain control of the aircraft may then be entered by operation of the keyboard or keypad feature 406 by a flight crew member.") (*Examiner interprets a command override mode as representing a period of time after the activation of automated functionality in which the vehicle is operating in a different control mode)
in response to the activation of the autoland functionality; (see at least [Fig. 1A, item 102] [0028] “if a determination is made in block 102 that the aircraft is being controlled by the autopilot, the method 100 may advance to block 114. In block 114, flight parameters and cockpit or cabin environmental parameters may be monitored as well as any other parameters for detecting normal operation of the aircraft" [0031] "In block 118, a command override may be engaged and a command may be issued to the autopilot to control the aircraft." [0033] "In block 122, the auto pilot may initiate a controlled descent to the nearest landing site or airport.”)
in response to deactivation of the autoland functionality, (see at least [0035] “ In block 128, a determination may be made if an acknowledgment was received and/or the correct security code or password was entered to regain control of the aircraft." [0036] "If a determination is made in block 128 and an acknowledgment or correct security code was received, the method 100 may return to block 104”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to take actions in response to activation of autolanding, for the time duration of autolanding control, and in response to deactivation of autolanding control, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005]. As this autonomous control is a defined period in which aircraft control actions are performed in response to activation of autolanding control, for the time duration of autolanding control, and in response to deactivation of autolanding control, in combination with Bosworth it would be obvious to make the Bosworth system capable of performing the actions in response to the automated control as disclosed by Righi.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth (US 20180364707), herein after referred to as Bosworth, in view of Righi (US 20120116610), herein after referred to as Righi, and Krawiec (US 20220130264), herein after referred to as Krawiec.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein the automation summary (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality. (see at least [Figs 3 and 4, item 314] [0069] “The flight display 170 may include a primary or multi-function flight display (PFD or MFD) where the path may be drawn for the operator 160 to visualize.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
on the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising providing a graphical indication of a geographic location associated with the activation of the automated functionality
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
further comprising providing a graphical indication of a geographic location associated with the activation of the automated functionality (see at least [Fig. 3, item 310] [0074] "At one VTOL aircraft position 310 the VTOL aircraft may suffer some battle damage and the controller 120, via the vehicle health module 132 or selected by the manned operator 160, may initiate the automated emergency landing." [0085] "The start point of the path collocated with the VTOL aircraft position 310 may indicate the decision point at which the controller 120 receives the request for immediate landing request from either the vehicle health module 132 or the manned operator 160.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to provide a graphical indication of a geographic location associated with the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Bosworth further discloses:
the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the ... GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
wherein the ... GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality. . (see at least [Figs 3 and 4, item 314] [0069] “The flight display 170 may include a primary or multi-function flight display (PFD or MFD) where the path may be drawn for the operator 160 to visualize.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 10, but Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the graphical indication of the difference comprises a graphical representation of an alternate destination for the vehicle selected by the automated functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
wherein the graphical indication of the difference comprises a graphical representation of an alternate destination for the vehicle selected by the automated functionality. (see at least [Fig. 3, item 330] [0069] “The flight display 170 may include a primary or multi-function flight display (PFD or MFD) where the path may be drawn for the operator 160 to visualize.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display a graphical indication of an alternate destination for the vehicle selected by the automated functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 9, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein the automation summary (see at least [Figs 3a-3c][0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
GUI display comprises a navigational map region (see at least [Fig. 3a])
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
including a first graphical representation of an original route for the vehicle and a second graphical representation of a modified route for the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
including a first graphical representation of an original route for the vehicle and a second graphical representation of a modified route for the vehicle. (see at least [Figs 3 and 4, item 314 and the planned route shown in the figure] [0069] “The flight display 170 may include a primary or multi-function flight display (PFD or MFD) where the path may be drawn for the operator 160 to visualize.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the vehicle associated with the automated functionality and a planned route for the vehicle prior to the activation of the automated functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 14, and Bosworth further discloses:
the vehicle comprises an aircraft; (see at least [0011] “In certain aspects, the aircrew automation system can be configured to couple with an aircraft”)
the automated functionality comprises an autoland functionality; (see at least [0122] “Therefore, the aircrew automation system 100 may be further configured to perform, during an emergency, a descent and landing procedure in an aircraft equipped with an auto-landing controller.”)
the original route comprises an original flight plan to an original destination airport; (see at least [0073] “The normal flight operation application 216 enables aircrew automation system 100 to fly a predetermined flight plan from takeoff to landing, assuming no contingencies”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
and the modified route comprises an alternate route to an alternate destination airport selected by the autoland functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
and the modified route comprises an alternate route to an alternate destination airport selected by the autoland functionality. (see at least [0083] “the controller 120 may select the lowest threat LZ as the preferred LZ.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to determine a modified route comprises an alternate route to an alternate destination airport selected by the autoland functionality, as taught by Krawiec to select an appropriate landing site for a damaged aircraft [0075].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the navigational map region comprises a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the autoland functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
wherein the navigational map region comprises a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the autoland functionality. (see at least [Fig. 3, item 310 labeled "emergency landing initiated] [0074] “At one VTOL aircraft position 310 the VTOL aircraft may suffer some battle damage and the controller 120, via the vehicle health module 132 or selected by the manned operator 160, may initiate the automated emergency landing.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display the navigational map region comprising a graphical indication of a triggering event associated with the activation of the autoland functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 17, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 15, but Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the navigational map region comprises a graphical indication of a performance limitation of the aircraft with respect to the original flight plan.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
wherein the navigational map region comprises a graphical indication of a performance limitation of the aircraft with respect to the original flight plan. (see at least [Fig. 3, item 312] [0078] “ the controller 120 may determine the LZ range 312 based on the plurality of factors described above (e.g., aircraft state, engine state, wind) and an energy state of the VTOL aircraft”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display the navigational map region comprising a graphical indication of a performance limitation of the aircraft with respect to the original flight plan, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 17, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein the performance limitation comprises at least one of an inability of the aircraft to reach the original destination airport and an inability to resume manual operation of the aircraft. (see at least [0167] “For example, the aircraft may circle in place at a predetermined landing altitude until an auto-land command is received at step 802. ... The auto-land command may, however, be triggered upon detection via the aircrew health monitoring system 160 of continued pilot incapacitation (i.e., the pilot has remains incapacitated), after which aircrew automation system 100 will operate the aircraft.”)
Regarding Claim 19, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 15, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein the navigational map region comprises a graphical indication of a navigational reference points traversed by the aircraft during autonomous operation (see at least [0083] “"The human-machine interface 126 may communicate the status and/or details of various operations, including the entire aircrew automation system 100" [0086] the human-machine interface 126 may display an area map 326 with an icon 322 representing the current location of the aircraft along a flight path relative to its various waypoints 320. ”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
in accordance with the autoland functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
in accordance with the autoland functionality. (see at least [Figs 3 and 4, item 314 and the planned route in relation to map] [0069] “The flight display 170 may include a primary or multi-function flight display (PFD or MFD) where the path may be drawn for the operator 160 to visualize.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to display a graphical indication of a vehicle travel in accordance with Autoland functionality, as taught by Krawiec to display visual flight information during a flight [0069].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth (US 20180364707), herein after referred to as Bosworth, in view of Righi (US 20120116610), herein after referred to as Righi, and Sacle (US 20070050101), herein after referred to as Sacle.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
on the automation summary GUI display. (see at least [Figs 3a-3c] [0058] “The aircrew automation system 100 may further generate a log of a given flight for later analysis, which may be used to facilitate pilot training that can provide detailed training and operations flight debriefs.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
determining a performance limitation associated with operation of the vehicle at a time of the deactivation of the automated functionality based at least in part on a subset of the vehicle status data corresponding to the time of the deactivation; (see at least [0069] “Automatic and mandatory resumption of control of the aircraft is effected at the limit location where a relatively tight manual trajectory would still allow the crew to clear the conflict zone while complying with the limitations of the envelope of the flight domain and a trajectory margin so that the aircraft does not approach obstacles dangerously upon manual or automatic resumption of the flight." [0070] "Should the crew begin an avoidance maneuver judged to be too slow, the system resumes control in automatic mode.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to determine a performance limitation associated with operation of the vehicle at a time of the deactivation of the automated functionality based at least in part on a subset of the vehicle status data corresponding to the time of the deactivation, as taught by Sacle to prevent a plane which has been guided away from a restricted area from re-routing to a path that will not take it away from the restricted area after resumption of manual control. [0069-71]. As Bosworth discloses a system for logging the flight for future review and Sacle determines, stores, and presents the data, in combination of Bosworth and Sacle it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include this in the summary.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 16, but Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining the performance limitation comprises determining an inability of the vehicle to reach an original destination associated with a planned route of travel for the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi discloses:
wherein determining the performance limitation comprises determining an inability of the vehicle to reach an original destination associated with a planned route of travel for the vehicle. (see at least [Fig. 3, item 304] [0074] “aircraft launching from a takeoff airport 302 and planning to fly a planned route to a destination airport 304.") (*See destination, item 304 of Fig. 3, as shaded being filtered out for being out of range)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Bosworth to determine the performance limitation comprises determining an inability of the vehicle to reach an original destination associated with a planned route of travel for the vehicle, as taught by Righi to allow for control during a period of flight crew incapacity [0005].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 6, and Bosworth further discloses:
wherein determining the performance limitation comprises determining an inability to resume manual operation of the vehicle. (see at least [0167] “For example, the aircraft may circle in place at a predetermined landing altitude until an auto-land command is received at step 802. ... The auto-land command may, however, be triggered upon detection via the aircrew health monitoring system 160 of continued pilot incapacitation (i.e., the pilot has remains incapacitated), after which aircrew automation system 100 will operate the aircraft.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights