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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 22, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 remain pending in the application Claims 21-23 have been added. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection under U.S.C. 101 previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/4/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the references fail to disclose “automatically generating an automation summary graphical user interface (GUI) display including graphical indicia of a time ordered sequence of status data” this argument is moot as it is not based on the claims as examined in the office action mailed 12/4/2025 but rather on the amended claims submitted 2/26/2026.
Further, the examine disagrees that the independent claim is patentable over the art because “cited portions of Bosworth do not disclose providing situational awareness with respect to prior past actions by autoland functionality” as this is not within the claims. While the claims are of course interpreted in view of the specification, the claim that is actually written and presented is being examined- the claims do not recite situational awareness or an improvement to such. Instead, the present application claims the opposite by presenting the automation summary after the end of autoland functionality. The system of the present claim records the status changes during the time that autoland is functional, but only makes any person or pilot aware after the fact and claims no use of prior data- only collection of new data. In in this way any system which logs flight data still reads on the claim, regardless of whether it presents data from prior flights as this isn’t claimed. As the claim does not exclude data other than the changes brought on by autolanding, stating the status data “comprises” the changes, any system of flight data logging and then providing the logs for presentation after landing in an autolanding event reads on the claims.
Further the applicant alleges that Righi fails to provide situational awareness, however this is not relevant as the Bosworth reference already discloses making the flight status data available after the end of the autoland functionality. Righi instead discloses that it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to perform dedicated actions in response to and for a period of time after the initiation or deactivation of an autolanding function. While the examiner acknowledges that Bosworth is agnostic to the particulars of the current operating status with regards to recording aircraft and flight status data, Righi demonstrates that it is not patentable to simply take Bosworth and modify it to do this in response to the autoland activation- it is an obvious modification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. For these and the reasons above, examiner maintains the rejection under U.S.C. 103 was proper, see rejection of the as-amended claims below.
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, 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, and Gowda (US 20200134940), herein after referred to as Gowda.
Regarding Claim 1, Bosworth discloses:
automatically recording vehicle status data from one or more systems onboard the vehicle 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.”)
wherein the status data comprises a plurality of changes resulting from the autoland functionality that occurred during the period of time, the plurality of changes being different from a flight plan prior to the activation of the autoland functionality; (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.”) (*Examiner interprets that a system generating a full log of flight data would include the data indicating changes resulting from the autolanding functionality as the claim limitation is not exclusive of other data)
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.” [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.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
in response to activation of an autoland functionality associated with the aircraft
for a period of time after the activation of the autoland functionality;
in response to deactivation of the autoland functionality.
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi makes obvious:
in response to activation of an autoland functionality associated with the aircraft, (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 autoland 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 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 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Gowda discloses:
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence. (see at least [Fig. 7] [0035] “FIG. 7 depicts a timeline GUI display 700 that may be presented by or on a computing device in connection with the input sequence presentation process 300 of FIG. 3. The timeline GUI display 700 includes a time column 702 that indicates the time associated with graphical indicia depicted in an adjacent column 704 of the timeline GUI display 700 for depicting actions by pilot or other crew members.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the aircraft 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 implement a GUI display summary including graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence, as taught by Gowda to depict a timeline of aircraft status changes after operation [0035]. As the Bosworth reference already discloses recording the status data during operation in accordance with the autolanding function as well discloses presenting the data human review without a specific GUI system, the Gowda reference’s formatting of aircraft status data is an obvious modification.
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 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 9, Bosworth discloses:
automatically record status data from one or more systems onboard an aircraft during operation of the aircraft in accordance with an automated functionality associated with the aircraft … resulting in recorded 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”)
wherein the status data comprises a plurality of changes resulting from the autoland functionality that occurred during the period of time, the plurality of changes being different from a flight plan prior to the activation of the autoland functionality; (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.”) (*Examiner interprets that a system generating a full log of flight data would include the data indicating changes resulting from the autolanding functionality as the claim limitation is not exclusive of other data)
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 autoland functionality associated with the vehicle,
for a period of time after the activation of the autoland functionality;
in response to deactivation of the autoland functionality.
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence.
In the same field of endeavor, Righi makes obvious:
in response to activation of an autoland 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 autoland 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 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 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Gowda discloses:
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence. (see at least [Fig. 7] [0035] “FIG. 7 depicts a timeline GUI display 700 that may be presented by or on a computing device in connection with the input sequence presentation process 300 of FIG. 3. The timeline GUI display 700 includes a time column 702 that indicates the time associated with graphical indicia depicted in an adjacent column 704 of the timeline GUI display 700 for depicting actions by pilot or other crew members.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the aircraft 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 implement a GUI display summary including graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence, as taught by Gowda to depict a timeline of aircraft status changes after operation [0035]. As the Bosworth reference already discloses recording the status data during operation in accordance with the autolanding function as well discloses presenting the data human review without a specific GUI system, the Gowda reference’s formatting of aircraft status data is an obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 9, 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.”)
wherein the status data comprises a plurality of changes resulting from the autoland functionality that occurred during the period of time, the plurality of changes being different from a flight plan prior to the activation of the autoland functionality; (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.”) (*Examiner interprets that a system generating a full log of flight data would include the data indicating changes resulting from the autolanding functionality as the claim limitation is not exclusive of other data)
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,
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence
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.
In the same field of endeavor, Gowda discloses:
wherein the automation summary GUI display includes graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence. (see at least [Fig. 7] [0035] “FIG. 7 depicts a timeline GUI display 700 that may be presented by or on a computing device in connection with the input sequence presentation process 300 of FIG. 3. The timeline GUI display 700 includes a time column 702 that indicates the time associated with graphical indicia depicted in an adjacent column 704 of the timeline GUI display 700 for depicting actions by pilot or other crew members.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the aircraft 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 implement a GUI display summary including graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence, as taught by Gowda to depict a timeline of aircraft status changes after operation [0035]. As the Bosworth reference already discloses recording the status data during operation in accordance with the autolanding function as well discloses presenting the data human review without a specific GUI system, the Gowda reference’s formatting of aircraft status data is an obvious modification.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 12, and Bosworth further discloses:
the plurality of changes comprises a plurality of aircraft configuration changes initiated by the autoland functionality; (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.”) (*Examiner interprets that a system generating a full log of flight data would include the data indicating changes resulting from the autolanding functionality as the claim limitation is not exclusive of other data)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
and the graphical indicia comprise graphical indicia of the plurality of aircraft configuration changes in association with at least one of a respective timestamp
and a respective aircraft position at a time of a respective aircraft configuration change of the plurality of aircraft configuration changes.
In the sane field of endeavor, Gowda discloses:
and the graphical indicia comprise graphical indicia of the plurality of aircraft configuration changes in association with at least one of a respective timestamp (see at least [Fig. 7] [0042] “FIG. 7 depicts a timeline GUI display 700 that may be presented by or on a computing device in connection with the input sequence presentation process 300 of FIG. 3. The timeline GUI display 700 includes a time column 702 that indicates the time associated with graphical indicia depicted in an adjacent column 704 of the timeline GUI display 700”)
and a respective aircraft position at a time of a respective aircraft configuration change of the plurality of aircraft configuration changes. (see at least [Fig. 8] [0035] “an integrated multidimensional GUI display may be provided that provides graphical indicia of the captured user inputs with respect to contemporaneous flight data, such as, for example, altitude, distance, and/or the like. For example, as described in greater detail below in the context of FIG. 8, in one embodiment, graphical indicia of captured user inputs may be presented with respect to the distance-to-go from the destination at the time of the respective captured user inputs, thereby concurrently enabling both temporal and spatial analysis of the user input sequence.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the aircraft 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 implement a GUI display summary including graphical indicia of the plurality of changes in the time ordered sequence with a timestamp and aircraft position at the time, as taught by Gowda to depict a timeline of aircraft status changes after operation [0035]. As the Bosworth reference already discloses recording the status data during operation in accordance with the autolanding function as well discloses presenting the data human review without a specific GUI system, the Gowda reference’s formatting of aircraft status data is an obvious modification.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 1619 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, Gowda (US 20200134940), herein after referred to as Gowda, 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 aircraft associated with the autoland functionality and a planned route for the aircraft prior to the activation of the autoland functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
GUI display comprises a graphical indication of a difference between a modified route for the aircraft associated with the autoland functionality and a planned route for the aircraft prior to the activation of the autoland 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 autoland 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 autoland 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 5, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Bosworth further discloses:
providing graphical indicia of a plurality of navigational reference points of the ... route traversed by the aircraft (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 autoland 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.”)
Bosworth does not explicitly disclose:
the modified route traversed by the aircraft
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
the modified route traversed by the aircraft (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 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 aircraft associated with the autoland functionality and a planned route for the aircraft prior to the activation of the autoland 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 aircraft associated with the autoland functionality and a planned route for the aircraft prior to the activation of the autoland 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 aircraft selected by the autoland 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 aircraft selected by the autoland 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 flight plan to an original destination airport and a second graphical representation of a modified route for the aircraft, the modified route comprising an alternate route to an alternate destination airport selected by the autoland functionality.
In the same field of endeavor, Krawiec discloses:
including a first graphical representation of an original route for the flight plan to an original destination airport and a second graphical representation of a modified route for the aircraft, the modified route comprising an alternate route to an alternate destination airport selected by the autoland functionality. (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 16, modified Bosworth discloses the limitations of Claim 14, 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 14, 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 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 14, 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].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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