DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the claims filed on 02/26/2026. Wherein, claims 1, 2, 4, 13, and 19 are amended, claims 14, 17, and 18 are cancelled, claims 21-23 are new, and claim 4 is allowed.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, and 13-20, rejected under 35 USC § 102, the Applicant argues:
With respect to amended Claim 1, the cited portions of Offredi fail to identically disclose monitoring one or more components for user input within a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition, where the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods include a flight phase monitoring period and a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period, and at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period dynamically varies during operation of the vehicle. Rather, the cited portions of Offredi (paragraphs [0074]-[0075] and [0079]) pertain to a timer started after entering a primed mode after incapacitation has been detected to allow a crew member to prevent entering an initial activation mode from the primed mode after an incapacitated crew state (see FIG. 2). Offredi does not identically disclose concurrent monitoring periods prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition in the claimed manner that include a flight phase monitoring period and a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period.
While Offredi does not explicitly teach the amended claims with the cited references, Offredi does teach the amended claims within other embodiments of its invention.
In this instance the claims have been amended to recite: “…prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition, monitoring one or more components for user input within a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods, the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods including a flight phase monitoring period and a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period, wherein at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period dynamically varies during operation of the vehicle;
detecting the potential incapacity condition in an absence of user input within the at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period when an elapsed time since a received user input is greater than a respective duration of the at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period and
autonomously activating an automated functionality associated with the vehicle after detecting the potential incapacity condition.”
Offredi discloses “At step 202, the ESP device 106 is in a standby mode, where normal control of the aircraft 100, e.g. by the pilot(s) and/or auto-pilot system 116, is taking place. During this standby mode, the ESP device continuously (or intermittently, or on an event basis, or on-demand basis) performs determinations as to whether at least one crew member is incapacitated” (¶ [0074]) While in standby mode, i.e., prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition, the ESP device continually, i.e., a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods, monitors the crew for incapacity. The monitoring can be based on sensors 104A-104C. Sensor 104C is an input signal from the crew: “With regards to the controller operation sensor 104C, the ESP device 106 may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to the primed mode if, for example, it has not receive a signal indicating that the controller has been operated over a predetermined period of time.” (¶ [0077]) Here, during the standby mode the system is continually monitoring component(s) for an user input.”
While in standby mode, once the system determines there it has not received a signal within a predetermined time period, i.e., a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods including a flight phase monitoring period, it will switch to the prime mode, i.e., a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period. Once in primed mode, i.e., nominal event monitoring, a timer is set to give other crew members time to prevent entering into activation mode. This time period varies, e.g., 30 seconds to several minutes depending on the altitude of the aircraft and/or the velocity of the aircraft. (¶ [0079])
While in the primed mode the system, based on the timer, waits for an input to occur within that timer period, i.e., within the nominal event monitoring period. If no input is received prior to the expiration of the timer, then the system enters into activation mode, i.e., autonomously activating an automated functionality associated with the vehicle after detecting the potential incapacity condition. (¶ [0082])
For the above reasons, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s statement that Offredi “Fail to identically disclose monitoring one or more components for user input within a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition, where the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods include a flight phase monitoring period and a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period, and at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period dynamically varies during operation of the vehicle.”
Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 USC §102 have been maintained.
Since Offredi fails to identically disclose the subject matter recited by amended Claim 1 in as complete detail as required by Claim 1, Claim 1 is not anticipated by Offredi. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested the rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, 13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 be withdrawn.
For the reasons above the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Claims 7-10 and 12 depend from Claim 1, and the cited portions of Pilley, Wang and Krenz fail to disclose, suggest or otherwise teach the requisite modifications to Offredi to arrive at the claimed subject matter recited by amended Claim 1 absent benefit of impermissible hindsight reconstruction derived from Applicant's specification.
Accordingly, amended Claim 1 is patentable over Offredi in view of Pilley, Wang and/or Krenz and it is respectfully requested the rejections of Claims 7-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
For the above reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. It is for the above reasons that the Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 USC § 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Offredi et al. (US 2018/0304993 A1, “Offredi”).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Offredi discloses emergency control of an aircraft and teaches:
A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to: (The ESP device 106 can comprise a computing device that includes a processor 108, memory 110, communication interface 112 and a control unit 114. In some cases the device 106 may be a stand-alone/special purpose computing device, or it may be part of at least one other component of the aircraft, e.g., partially integrated into an auto-pilot system of the aircraft– See at least ¶ [0068] Thus, functional elements of the invention may in some embodiments include, by way of example, components, such as software components, object-oriented software components, class components and task components, processes, functions, attributes, procedures, subroutines, segments of program code, drivers, firmware, microcode, circuitry, data, databases, data structures, tables, arrays, and variables – See at least ¶ [0106])
prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition, (At step 202, the ESP device 106 is in a standby mode, where normal control of the aircraft 100, e.g. by the pilot(s) and/or auto-pilot system 116, is taking place. During this standby mode, the ESP device continuously (or intermittently, or on an event basis, or on-demand basis) performs determinations as to whether at least one crew member is incapacitated – See at least ¶ [0074]; Examiner notes that “standby mode” occurs prior to detecting a potential incapacity condition.) monitor one or more components coupled to the processing system for user input within a plurality of concurrent monitoring periods, (With regards to the controller operation sensor 104C, the ESP device 106 may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to the primed mode if, for example, it has not receive a signal indicating that the controller has been operated over a predetermined period of time – See at least ¶ [0077]) the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods including a flight phase monitoring period and a nominal event monitoring period concurrent to the flight phase monitoring period, (If the ESP device 106 enters the primed mode (step 204) then it can start a timer to give crew members an opportunity to prevent it from entering an initial activation mode. During the primed mode, normal operation of the aircraft 100 will continue to take place. However, the system may emit an internal warning signal (in the cabin 102 and/or elsewhere in the aircraft) in order to alert any available crew member ( s ) that incapacitation has been detected, and a timer may be started in order to allow any such crew member to prevent an initial activation mode from being entered. The duration of the timer can range from , say , 30 seconds to several minutes – See at least ¶ [0079]) wherein at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period dynamically varies during operation of a vehicle; (In some embodiments, the duration of the timer may be based on at least one factor, such as the altitude of the aircraft (e.g. the higher the altitude, the longer the duration), the velocity of the aircraft, etc. – See at least ¶ [0079])
detect a potential incapacity condition in an absence of user input within at least one of the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods when an elapsed time since a received user input is greater than a respective duration of the at least one of the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods; and (If the prevention action is not taken and the timer reaches the predetermined time-out period then the system enters the initial activation mode – See at least ¶ [0080])
autonomously activate an automated functionality associated with the vehicle in response to detecting the potential incapacity condition. (In the full activation mode the ESP device 106 may transmit a mayday signal indicating that the crew has been incapacitated, e.g., using radio or other communication units of the aircraft 100. The system may disable any manual control of the aircraft while the crew is still determined to be in an incapacitated state. Embodiments may also be capable of conducting weather avoidance. Embodiments of the system aim to control the flight operation of the aircraft and land at an airport – See at least ¶ [0082])
Regarding claim 2, Offredi further teaches:
further comprising dynamically reducing the respective duration of the at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period in response to a triggering event. (During the primed mode, normal operation of the aircraft 100 will continue to take place. However, the system may emit an internal warning signal (in the cabin 102 and/or elsewhere in the aircraft) in order to alert any available crew member(s) that incapacitation has been detected, and a timer may be started in order to allow any such crew member to prevent an initial activation mode from being entered. The duration of the timer can range from, say, 30 seconds to several minutes. In some embodiments, the duration of the timer may be based on at least one factor, i.e., a triggering event, such as the altitude of the aircraft (e.g. the higher the altitude, the longer the duration), the velocity of the aircraft, etc. – See at least ¶ [0079])
Regarding claim 3, Offredi further teaches:
wherein dynamically reducing the respective duration comprises reducing the respective duration using a scaling factor. (For instance, with regards to the imaging device sensor 104A , the ESP device 106 can analyze images encoded in the electronic signals of the imaging device in order to detect movement of the at least one crew member, e.g. using known image processing/comparison techniques. The processor of the ESP device may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to a primed mode if no movement is detected, e.g. no substantial change in a part of the image recognized as a crew member, over a predetermined period of time and/or over predetermined number of image frames. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0075])
Regarding claim 5, Offredi further teaches:
further comprising determining the scaling factor based on an event type associated with the triggering event. (For instance, with regards to the imaging device sensor 104A , the ESP device 106 can analyze images encoded in the electronic signals of the imaging device in order to detect movement of the at least one crew member, e.g. using known image processing/comparison techniques. The processor of the ESP device may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to a primed mode if no movement is detected, e.g. no substantial change in a part of the image recognized as a crew member, over a predetermined period of time and/or over predetermined number of image frames. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0075]; Here, movement, i.e., event type, is associated with a landing operation, i.e., a triggering event)
Regarding claim 6, Offredi further teaches:
further comprising determining the scaling factor based on a current flight phase. (For instance, with regards to the imaging device sensor 104A , the ESP device 106 can analyze images encoded in the electronic signals of the imaging device in order to detect movement of the at least one crew member, e.g. using known image processing/comparison techniques. The processor of the ESP device may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to a primed mode if no movement is detected, e.g. no substantial change in a part of the image recognized as a crew member, over a predetermined period of time and/or over predetermined number of image frames. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0075]; Here, the aircraft is in the landing phase)
Regarding claim 11, Offredi further teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises an unopened controller-pilot datalink communication (CPDLC) message. (In the ESP Ground Station Strategic Control mode 306, the ground station 113 can load a route into the FMS 117 of the aircraft 100 via the ESP device 106. The ESP device can then check whether this route is acceptable (within the limitations of the FMS navigation database). When the trusted link 130 is present, the ESP device will not be able to override a route that has been loaded from the ground station. However, if the trusted link is lost then the ESP device will start a "link lost" timer. If this timer expires then the ESP device will return to the ESP full control mode 302 – See at least ¶ [0089]; the link may be based on existing authenticated communication protocols, such as those used to communicate with air traffic control, e.g., controller pilot data link communications (CPDLC) – See at least ¶ [0083])
Regarding claim 13, Offredi further teaches:
wherein dynamically reducing the respective duration of the at least one of the flight phase monitoring period and the nominal event monitoring period comprises dynamically reducing a flight phase monitoring period associated with a current flight phase in response to occurrence of the triggering event during the current flight phase using a scaling factor associated with an event type associated with the triggering event. (For instance, with regards to the imaging device sensor 104A , the ESP device 106 can analyze images encoded in the electronic signals of the imaging device in order to detect movement of the at least one crew member, e.g. using known image processing/comparison techniques. The processor of the ESP device may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to a primed mode if no movement is detected, e.g. no substantial change in a part of the image recognized as a crew member, over a predetermined period of time and/or over predetermined number of image frames. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0075]; Here, the aircraft is in the landing phase)
Regarding claim 14, Offredi further teaches:
wherein the scaling factor varies depending on the event type. (For instance, with regards to the imaging device sensor 104A , the ESP device 106 can analyze images encoded in the electronic signals of the imaging device in order to detect movement of the at least one crew member, e.g. using known image processing/comparison techniques. The processor of the ESP device may determine that it needs to change from the standby mode to a primed mode if no movement is detected, e.g. no substantial change in a part of the image recognized as a crew member, over a predetermined period of time and/or over predetermined number of image frames. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0075]; Here, a landing operation is an event type.)
Regarding claim 15, Offredi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods are different. (At step 202, the ESP device 106 is in a standby mode, where normal control of the aircraft 100, e.g. by the pilot(s) and/or auto-pilot system 116, is taking place. During this standby mode, the ESP device continuously (or intermittently, or on an event basis, or on-demand basis) performs determinations as to whether at least one crew member is incapacitated. This determination will be based on processing information provided by the at least one sensor 104A-104C. The skilled person will appreciate that the period of time can vary, e.g. from one minute to several minutes. Also, the predetermined period of time may change based on various factors; for instance, it may be shorter when it is expected that a pilot will move more frequently, e.g. when preparing for a landing operation – See at least ¶ [0074]-[0075]; If the ESP device 106 enters the primed mode (step 204) then it can start a timer to give crew members an opportunity to prevent it from entering an initial activation mode...The duration of the timer can range from, say, 30 seconds to several minutes. In some embodiments, the duration of the timer may be based on at least one factor, such as the altitude of the aircraft (e.g. the higher the altitude, the longer the duration), the velocity of the aircraft, etc. – See at least ¶ [0079])
Regarding claim 16, Offredi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of concurrent monitoring periods correspond to different potential triggering events. (At step 202, the ESP device 106 is in a standby mode, where normal control of the aircraft 100, e.g. by the pilot(s) and/or auto-pilot system 116, is taking place. During this standby mode , the ESP device continuously (or intermittently, or on an event basis, or on-demand basis) performs determinations as to whether at least one crew member is incapacitated…The ESP device may only change to a primed mode, i.e., a concurrent monitoring period, if signals received from at least two (functionally different) sensors indicate that the incapacitation has taken place – See at least ¶ [0073]-[0074]; Here the system enters into the standby mode and monitors signals for a predetermined time. Then if the determination occurs, this triggers the primed mode where the system monitors signals for a different time period.)
Regarding claim 17, Offredi further teaches:
wherein: the vehicle comprises an aircraft; (The present invention relates to control of an aircraft, and particularly but not exclusively, to emergency control of an aircraft in the event of crew incapacitation – See at least ¶ [0001])
the automated functionality comprises an autoland functionality; and (In the full activation mode the ESP device 106 may transmit a mayday signal indicating that the crew has been incapacitated, e.g., using radio or other communication units of the aircraft 100. The system may disable any manual control of the aircraft while the crew is still determined to be in an incapacitated state. Embodiments may also be capable of conducting weather avoidance. Embodiments of the system aim to control the flight operation of the aircraft and land at an airport – See at least ¶ [0082])
autonomously activating the automated functionality comprises:
automatically selecting a different airport for landing the aircraft; and (The system will score a list of airports to determine which airport to select for the emergency landing – See at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0100]-[0104])
autonomously flying the aircraft along a route to a final approach fix associated with a selected airport. (Approach routes to runways that are suitable, but not preferred, can be demoted in order to guide the ESP device 106 to land at a preferred runway, e.g. one at an airport that has good emergency services and long runways (but not major airports that have demoted approach routes). The initial airport that could be selected may be limited to one of more of the following: CAT2 ILS or greater; long runways; large but not major airports; original destination and/or good support services – See at least ¶ [0104])
Regarding claim 18, Offredi further teaches:
wherein: the vehicle comprises an aircraft; (The present invention relates to control of an aircraft, and particularly but not exclusively, to emergency control of an aircraft in the event of crew incapacitation – See at least ¶ [0001])
the automated functionality comprises an autoland functionality; and (In the full activation mode the ESP device 106 may transmit a mayday signal indicating that the crew has been incapacitated, e.g., using radio or other communication units of the aircraft 100. The system may disable any manual control of the aircraft while the crew is still determined to be in an incapacitated state. Embodiments may also be capable of conducting weather avoidance. Embodiments of the system aim to control the flight operation of the aircraft and land at an airport – See at least ¶ [0082])
autonomously activating the automated functionality comprises autonomously communicating with air traffic control (ATC). (In some embodiments, the ESP device 106 can generate an emergency route to an airport for emergency landing of the aircraft 100. In some embodiments, the ESP device may (alternatively or additionally) negotiate with, or receive data relating to a route/airport, from the ground station 113 – See at least ¶ [0084])
Regarding claim 20 and 23, Offredi further teaches:
wherein: the vehicle comprises an aircraft; and (The present invention relates to control of an aircraft, and particularly but not exclusively, to emergency control of an aircraft in the event of crew incapacitation – See at least ¶ [0001])
the automated functionality comprises an autoland functionality. (In the full activation mode the ESP device 106 may transmit a mayday signal indicating that the crew has been incapacitated, e.g., using radio or other communication units of the aircraft 100. The system may disable any manual control of the aircraft while the crew is still determined to be in an incapacitated state. Embodiments may also be capable of conducting weather avoidance. Embodiments of the system aim to control the flight operation of the aircraft and land at an airport – See at least ¶ [0082])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offredi, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Pilley et al. (US 2003/0083804 A1, “Pilley”)
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Offredi does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering event comprises a cross track error greater than a threshold. However, Pilley discloses computer human methods for the control and management of an airport and teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises a cross track error greater than a threshold. (a. Construct the True Course line between the previous waypoint 66 and the next waypoint 72 b. Determine the shortest distance (cross track error 73) from the current position 74 to the line between the previous waypoint 66 and next way point 72 c. Determine the magnitude of cross track CO d. Compare the magnitude of the cross track error to a predefined limit for total off course error shown as 75 in the figure. e. Construct an mathematical cylindrical Zone centered on the line between the previous waypoint 66 and next waypoint 72 with radius equal to the off course threshold 75 f. If the magnitude of the cross track error 73 is greater than the off course threshold 75 then raise flag and generate alert (off course) – See at least ¶ [0299]-[0304])
In summary, the combination of Offredi discloses monitoring the flight path/plan of an airplane and determining trigger events based on the information gathered, e.g., an altitude of the aircraft. Offredi does not explicitly teach the triggering event comprises a cross track error greater than a threshold. However, Pilley discloses computer human methods for the control and management of an airport and teaches that a cross track error greater than a threshold value may trigger a flag and alert.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the cross track error threshold, as taught in Pilley, to support seamless airport navigation and surveillance. (At Pilley ¶ [0011])
Regarding claim 21, Offredi does not explicitly teach, but Pilley further teaches:
further comprising initiating the nominal event monitoring period in response to a deviation from a flight plan. (a. Construct the True Course line between the previous waypoint 66 and the next waypoint 72 b. Determine the shortest distance (cross track error 73) from the current position 74 to the line between the previous waypoint 66 and next way point 72 c. Determine the magnitude of cross track CO d. Compare the magnitude of the cross track error to a predefined limit for total off course error shown as 75 in the figure. e. Construct an mathematical cylindrical Zone centered on the line between the previous waypoint 66 and next waypoint 72 with radius equal to the off course threshold 75 f. If the magnitude of the cross track error 73 is greater than the off course threshold 75 then raise flag and generate alert (off course) – See at least ¶ [0299]-[0304])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the cross track error threshold, as taught in Pilley, to support seamless airport navigation and surveillance. (At Pilley ¶ [0011])
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offredi, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Wang et al. (US 2017/0039858A1, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 8, Offredi does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering event comprises greater than a threshold number of callouts from air traffic control. However, Wang discloses communication-based monitoring of compliance with aviation regulations and operating procedures and teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises greater than a threshold number of callouts from air traffic control. (In certain embodiments, the processor device 20 can output a timeout alert if a set time limit to take pilot action is exceeded. The timeout alert reminds the pilot to take action (e.g., change flight settings, perform certain operations, or the like) after having acknowledged a request for pilot action – See at least ¶ [0042]; Here the number of callouts is one within a specific time period. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the communication-based monitoring of compliance with aviation regulations and operating procedures, as taught in Wang, to provide methods and systems for cross-checking compliance with aviation regulations, airspace restrictions, and the like. (At Wang ¶ [0005])
Regarding claim 9, Offredi does not explicitly teach, but Wang further teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises an absence of a pilot response to air traffic control (ATC) communications. (In certain embodiments, the processor device 20 can output a timeout alert if a set time limit to take pilot action is exceeded. The timeout alert reminds the pilot to take action (e.g., change flight settings, perform certain operations, or the like) after having acknowledged a request for pilot action – See at least ¶ [0042]; Examiner notes that the pilot action may be a verbal response such as ROGER, WILCO, STANDBY, or NEGATIVE, therefore an absence of these responses will trigger the timeout alert.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the communication-based monitoring of compliance with aviation regulations and operating procedures, as taught in Wang, to provide methods and systems for cross-checking compliance with aviation regulations, airspace restrictions, and the like. (At Wang ¶ [0005])
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offredi, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Krenz (US 2022/0397918 A1, “Krenz”).
Regarding claim 10, Offredi does not explicitly teach wherein the triggering event comprises flight past a top of descent point. However, Krenz discloses vehicular system and method for pre-arming actions according to conditional timeline and associated trigger events and teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises flight past a top of descent point. (In some embodiments, the user 202 may pick from a list(s) of trigger events, such as a list of flight plan information 1006 trigger events and a list of aircraft information 1010 trigger events (e.g., for specified aircraft and equipment states). Some of these trigger events may be persistent regardless of flight plan content. For example, the user 202 may pick a trigger event referenced to a distance from a destination airport and/or runway, and/or a trigger event referenced to passing through a specified altitude. Trigger events may also be specified relative to items (e.g., known and/or consistent items) in a flight plan such as Top of Climb (TOC) or Top of Descent (ToD) – See at least ¶ [0079])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the vehicular system and method for pre-arming actions according to conditional timeline and associated trigger events, as taught in Krenz, because the advantages of pre-arming an action and then later conditionally auto-executing the action may include the user only needing to visit a user interface once instead of intermittently over a period of time, letting a processor monitor and evaluate progression of any associated trigger events may be more accurate than humans, and may lessen a likelihood of incomplete tasks due to distraction, etc. (At Krenz ¶ [0026])
Regarding claim 12, Offredi does not explicitly teach, but Krenz further teaches:
wherein the triggering event comprises a flight phase change. (Each action item 704-1 , 704-2 , or 704-3 associated with a pre-armed action may point to a flight plan trigger event occurring on the conditional timeline 702 ( e.g. , a flight plan relative conditional timeline ), and in some embodiments, such a flight plan trigger event may include an absolute or relative time – See at least ¶ [0051]; the flight plan consists of “flight phases” as shown in Fig. 7 there is a climb phase, track phase, level phase, etc..)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the emergency control of an aircraft of Offredi to provide for the vehicular system and method for pre-arming actions according to conditional timeline and associated trigger events, as taught in Krenz, because the advantages of pre-arming an action and then later conditionally auto-executing the action may include the user only needing to visit a user interface once instead of intermittently over a period of time, letting a processor monitor and evaluate progression of any associated trigger events may be more accurate than humans, and may lessen a likelihood of incomplete tasks due to distraction, etc. (At Krenz ¶ [0026])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
With respect to claim 4, Offredi taken either individually or in combination other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest: “…wherein dynamically reducing the respective duration comprises reducing the respective duration using a second scaling factor in response to occurrence of a second triggering event after the reducing the respective duration in response to the triggering event.” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for those reasons that the Applicant' s invention defines over the prior art of record.
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights