DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 5/15/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-16 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant's arguments filed “Independent claim 1, as amended, now clarifies that the claimed solution is for an "aircraft system that permits a multi-pilot aircraft to be operated by a single onboard pilot." Independent claims 14 and 15, as amended, include the same or similar limitations. This clarification distinguishes the claimed invention from Shavit at a foundational level. Shavit's disclosure does not apply to dual-pilot or multi-pilot aircraft, nor does it address the distinct problem of enabling an aircraft designed for dual-pilot or multi-pilot operation to be safely operated by a single onboard pilot through coordinated assistance from both an onboard Al control system and a remote pilot via a CPRS. Rather, as discussed above, Shavit only proposes solutions for single-pilot aircraft, and its main focus is on addressing challenges for extending the flight duration of these smaller, single-pilot aircraft. Accordingly, even if Shavit discloses certain concepts in the context of a single-pilot aircraft as the Office Action contends, those disclosures do not teach or suggest the amended features, which clarify that the aircraft system is for a multi-pilot aircraft adapted for operation by a single onboard pilot. Shavit therefore fails to disclose or suggest this newly clarified aspect of independent claims 1, 14, and 15.” on 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Para 52 of Shavit disclosed in Para 52 “the present invention seek to provide a ground system operative to support, via a conventional air-ground communication link, a FAR-23 aircraft performing a long (private or chartered) flight carrying a small number of passengers such as one, two, three or four passengers” and Para 62 “the conventional presence of 2 pilots significantly impedes design of a small FAR-23 aircraft able to fly intercontinentally Since the presence of 2 pilots “uses up” a high proportion of the available payload weight allocation”. The examiner notes that FAR-23 aircrafts includes small normal category airplanes typically requires dual flight controls (a multi-pilot aircraft). FAR-23 aircrafts such as Cessna 172 and Cirrus SR20 are both dual flight controls system therefor multi-pilot aircraft.
(B) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 21-24, filed “the Office Action's interpretation of Shavit's AMC as constituting an "Al control system" is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, but rather an overbroad interpretation that gives no patentable weight to the express "artificial intelligence" modifier” on 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, 15 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (B), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Osipychev(US20230245575A1). The examiner notes that Shavit's AMC is capable of performs the control operations of the aircraft without AI and Osipychev included AI into the control operations of the aircraft. The combination of the two reference would fully encompasses the claimed limitation.
(C) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 24-25, filed “Shavit fails to disclose a learning model, it logically follows that this reference further fails to teach or suggest that such learning models "generate Al-based inferences for analyzing an operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft" or that suggest Al-based inferences are utilized "by an autonomous controller in operating the multi-pilot aircraft."” on 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, 15 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (C), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Osipychev(US20230245575A1). The examiner further notes Osipychev disclosed integrating AI into the control operations of the aircraft. The combination of the two reference would fully encompasses the claimed limitation.
(D) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 26, filed “Shavit does not disclose an Al control system and, therefore, cannot disclose or suggest an Al control system configured with override controls that enable both the onboard pilot and the remote pilot to override actions undertaken by decision-making functions executed by that Al control system” on 5/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 14, 15 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
As to point (D), upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Osipychev(US20230245575A1). The examiner notes that Shavit disclosed overriding the control of AMC while Osipychev included AI into the control operations of the aircraft. The combination of the two reference would fully encompasses the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-3, 6-7, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US20180290729A1) in view of Osipychev (US20230245575A1).
In regards to claim 1, Shavit teaches An aircraft system that permits a multi-pilot aircraft to be operated by a single onboard pilot comprising:
an onboard pilot assistance architecture that adapts the multi-pilot aircraft for single pilot operation(Shavit: Para 52 “the present invention seek to provide a ground system operative to support, via a conventional air-ground communication link, a FAR-23 aircraft performing a long (private or chartered) flight carrying a small number of passengers such as one, two, three or four passengers”; Para 62 “the conventional presence of 2 pilots significantly impedes design of a small FAR-23 aircraft able to fly intercontinentally Since the presence of 2 pilots “uses up” a high proportion of the available payload weight allocation”; i.e. FAR-23 aircraft are multi-pilot aircrafts), the onboard pilot assistance architecture comprising aircraft- installed systems that permit the single onboard pilot to activate assistance from at least two different sources in operating the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Fig. 7; Para 327 “Remote Pilot (RP) and aircraft management computer (AMC) may control the flight path only by managing the auto pilot and auto throttle”), including selectively allocating at least partial control to an artificial intelligence (AI) control system (Shavit: Fig. 7 Element 110; Para 273 “Transition (130) At (101) mode, if “blue button” used by pilot (if he fears he is about to become incapacitated or by passengers that recognize that the pilot is incapacitated) is activated or if system otherwise detects that pilot is not responsive, the system transfers to (108) mode”; Para 296 “Mode employed when, due to difficult circumstances, neither of the human pilots are currently active as PIC: emphasize gaining immediate PIC by aircraft management computer (AMC) hence transitions occur without awaiting consent from either pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (130) and (134) transitions away from an onboard pilot that is confirmed as being in an incapacitation state, or away from the RP if uplink has been lost”) and transferring at least partial control to a remote pilot via a copilot replacement system (CPRS) (Shavit: Fig. 7 Element 105; Para 273 “Transition (124) At mode (103), if onboard pilot (P) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to remote pilot (RP), and if remote pilot (RP) acknowledges in (parameter) seconds, the system transfers to mode (106)”) wherein:
the Al control system installed in the multi-pilot aircraft (Shavit: Fig. 2 Element 110; Para 98-99 “an aircraft management computer (AMC) controlled by an On-board Pilot Man Machine Interface (MMI) in the cockpit and configured, using a processor, to: (a) transfer aircraft control intermittently between onboard piloting mode (pilot-in-command=airborne pilot), remote piloting mode (pilot-in-command=remote pilot) and automatic pilot-in-command mode; (b) to transition between a first operational state in which control inputs from the pilot are accepted, and a second neutralized state (“sleep” state), in which (unintentional) control inputs from the pilot are not accepted, and (c) to provide air-ground synchronization in which controls executed from ground are presented on-board and vice versa; wherein when the remote pilot is in command and the aircraft management computer detects loss of uplink communication, the aircraft management computer automatically reverts to automatic pilot-in-command mode, until such time as the air pilot actively assumes command”) … wherein the Al control system is configured to:
execute one or more operational assessment functions configured to analyze the operational state corresponding to the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 359 “the aircraft management computer (15) may be operative to perform a suitable abnormal condition coping procedure e.g. including some or all of the following: i. If, once a predetermined time period (Te) from the transition to PIC=AMC has elapsed (e.g. 1 minute or order of magnitude 1 minute), the AMC detects an emergency situation that requires an immediate response, using predetermined rules, the AMC 15 performs immediate actions required e.g. as defined by aircraft flight manual emergency procedures. For example, if cabin pressure declines to below a predetermined value, the AMC 15 may initiate emergency descent procedure e.g. as implemented automatically in IAI G-280. ii. If a predetermined time window (Ti) has elapsed (e.g. 5 minutes, or 3 min, or 10 min, or values therebetween) and neither air pilot nor remote pilot have taken over, AMC 15 assumes continuous incapacitation pilot with lost uplink and operates accordingly e.g.: resets the navigation system to land at the nearest suitable airport; sets aircraft systems to follow descent approach, landing and after landing procedures and transmits, on ATC emergency frequency, its situation and the new rerouting. The AMC 15 is typically able to carry out emergency landing on a runway without ILS (instrument landing system), e.g. as in IAI UAV's such as Heron”); and
execute one or more decision-making functions configured to autonomously initiate actions for controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft based on the operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 359 “the aircraft management computer (15) may be operative to perform a suitable abnormal condition coping procedure e.g. including some or all of the following: i. If, once a predetermined time period (Te) from the transition to PIC=AMC has elapsed (e.g. 1 minute or order of magnitude 1 minute), the AMC detects an emergency situation that requires an immediate response, using predetermined rules, the AMC 15 performs immediate actions required e.g. as defined by aircraft flight manual emergency procedures. For example, if cabin pressure declines to below a predetermined value, the AMC 15 may initiate emergency descent procedure e.g. as implemented automatically in IAI G-280. ii. If a predetermined time window (Ti) has elapsed (e.g. 5 minutes, or 3 min, or 10 min, or values therebetween) and neither air pilot nor remote pilot have taken over, AMC 15 assumes continuous incapacitation pilot with lost uplink and operates accordingly e.g.: resets the navigation system to land at the nearest suitable airport; sets aircraft systems to follow descent approach, landing and after landing procedures and transmits, on ATC emergency frequency, its situation and the new rerouting. The AMC 15 is typically able to carry out emergency landing on a runway without ILS (instrument landing system), e.g. as in IAI UAV's such as Heron”);
the copilot replacement system (CPRS) installed in the multi-pilot aircraft is configured to establish a connection with a copilot ground base station (GBS) via at least one data link, the connection enabling a remote pilot to communicate with the single onboard pilot and provide assistance with operating the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Fig. 1; Para 156 “1. In the initial phase (50), the aircraft (1) is piloted by on-board pilot (11) from initialization to TOC (43—Top Of Climb). A remote pilot (21) may monitor and support the on-board pilot. 2. In the intermediate phase (51), after top of climb (TOC) and after cruise mode has been entered, aircraft piloting is transferred to the remote pilot (21) at the ground station (20). The remote pilot monitors and controls the aircraft via satellite (30) data link communication (31). The on-board pilot may release himself from duty and enter rest mode (12). Flight path may be maintained by an auto pilot and auto throttle that are controlled and/or monitored by the remote pilot. This phase comprises the major temporal portion of long flights. Time in which the pilot is resting, need not be considered flight time. 3. In the final phase (52), the aircraft piloting is transferred again to the on-board pilot. The transfer may be done usually toward top of descent (TOD) (44) and the on-board pilot may pilot the aircraft, typically until flight ends. (42). A remote pilot (21) may monitor and support the on-board pilot”);
wherein the Al control system is configured with one or more override controls that enable both the single onboard pilot and the remote pilot to override any of the actions undertaken by the one or more decision-making functions executed by the autonomous controller with respect to autonomously controlling operation of the multi- pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 273 “Transition (131) At (110) mode, if onboard pilot (P) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to P, the system transfers to mode (101)”; Para 273 “Transition (136) At (112) mode, if remote pilot (RP) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to RP, the system transfers to (105) mode”; Para 295 “each transition occurs immediately upon request by the pilot expressing willingness to be pilot in command (PIC), even lacking the other pilot's consent. Priority may be defined if both pilots express the same, simultaneously, e.g. the air pilot may enjoy priority over the remote pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (125) onboard pilot grabs the control from the remote pilot (RP). (131) onboard pilot grabs the control from automatic system”).
Yet Shavit do not explicitly teach an artificial intelligence (AI) control system; and
the Al control system installed in the multi-pilot aircraft comprises one or more learning models trained to generate Al-based inferences for analyzing an operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft for usage by an autonomous controller in operating the multi-pilot aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Osipychev teaches an artificial intelligence (AI) control system(Osipychev: Para 32 “The aircraft 100 also includes a mission management system (MMS) 210. The MMS is a subsystem configured to manage missions of the aircraft. A mission is a deployment of the aircraft (one or more aircraft) to achieve one or more mission objectives”; Para 40 “The MMS 210 is configured to determine the predicted states of the aircraft from the maneuvers. In various examples, the predicted states are determined from the maneuvers, and using the surrogate model of the environment 304. In other examples, the predicted states are determined from the maneuvers, and using a transition model that is separate and independent from the surrogate model”; Para 41 “The MMS 210 is configured to generate a collision avoidance trajectory from the predicted states of the aircraft. FIG. 3 illustrates two possible collision avoidance trajectories 308A, 308B that may be generated”); and
the Al control system installed in the multi-pilot aircraft comprises one or more learning models trained to generate Al-based inferences for analyzing an operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft for usage by an autonomous controller in operating the multi-pilot aircraft (Osipychev: Para 61 “The method includes receiving observations of states of the aircraft and a nearby obstacle in an environment of the aircraft as the aircraft travels the defined route, as shown at block 702 of FIG. 7A. The method includes applying at block 704 the states to a reinforcement learning framework to predict and thereby determine predicted states of the aircraft to avoid a conflict between the aircraft and the nearby obstacle. The reinforcement learning framework determines maneuvers of the aircraft to avoid the conflict, using a policy trained using a surrogate model of the environment in which movements of the aircraft and the nearby obstacle are simulated, and determines the predicted states of the aircraft from the maneuvers, as shown at blocks 706 and 708. The method includes generating a collision avoidance trajectory from the predicted states of the aircraft, as shown at block 710. And the method includes outputting an indication of the collision avoidance trajectory for use in at least one of guidance, navigation or control of the aircraft, as shown at block 712”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify An aircraft system that permits a multi-pilot aircraft to be operated by a single onboard pilot of Shavit with the feature of an artificial intelligence (AI) control system; and the Al control system installed in the multi-pilot aircraft comprises one or more learning models trained to generate Al-based inferences for analyzing an operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft for usage by an autonomous controller in operating the multi-pilot aircraft. disclosed by Osipychev. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “avoidance solution may be designed to provide a quick and feasible avoidance trajectory that satisfies appropriate safety requirements” (Osipychev: Para 8).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein executing one or more operational assessment functions to analyze the operational state corresponding to the multi-pilot aircraft includes at least one of:
analyzing an exterior environment in which the multi-pilot aircraft operates;
analyzing an interior environment within the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 359 “If, once a predetermined time period (Te) from the transition to PIC=AMC has elapsed (e.g. 1 minute or order of magnitude 1 minute), the AMC detects an emergency situation that requires an immediate response, using predetermined rules, the AMC 15 performs immediate actions required e.g. as defined by aircraft flight manual emergency procedures. For example, if cabin pressure declines to below a predetermined value, the AMC 15 may initiate emergency descent procedure e.g. as implemented automatically in IAI G-280”);
analyzing data received from one or more systems or components; or
analyzing flight parameters of the multi-pilot aircraft.
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein the operational state of the multi-pilot aircraft is analyzed using one or more of:
analysis information generated by a computer vision system integrated with the Al control system, which processes visual data captured by one or more vision systems installed on exterior or interior of the multi-pilot aircraft;
analysis information generated by a natural language processing (NLP) system integrated with the Al control system, which processes text, voice, or audio communications; and
data received from the one or more aircraft systems or components coupled with the autonomous controller(Shavit: Para 359 “If, once a predetermined time period (Te) from the transition to PIC=AMC has elapsed (e.g. 1 minute or order of magnitude 1 minute), the AMC detects an emergency situation that requires an immediate response, using predetermined rules, the AMC 15 performs immediate actions required e.g. as defined by aircraft flight manual emergency procedures. For example, if cabin pressure declines to below a predetermined value, the AMC 15 may initiate emergency descent procedure e.g. as implemented automatically in IAI G-280”).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein:
the AI control system includes a natural language processing (NLP) system that monitors and interprets communications received by the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 299 “if the aircraft was being controlled by remote pilot and the aircraft management computer discerns that uplink from the ground was lost, the aircraft management computer transition the piloting mode from pilot-in-command=remote-pilot, to automatic (134) and a warning is provided, via alarm apparatus 10 (FIG. 2), to at least the air pilot. Automatic detection of lost air-ground communication is known; e.g. in UAV's; for example, if one side fails to receive from the other side an expected communication in an expected time slot for a predetermined number of communication cycles; or if an expected ack signal fails to arrive e.g. for a predetermined number of communication cycles”; i.e. aircraft management computer monitors and interprets communications received by the multi-pilot aircraft ); and
the decision-making functions executed by the autonomous controller are configured to execute one or more actions for autonomously controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft based on the communications received by the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 299 “if the aircraft was being controlled by remote pilot and the aircraft management computer discerns that uplink from the ground was lost, the aircraft management computer transition the piloting mode from pilot-in-command=remote-pilot, to automatic (134) and a warning is provided, via alarm apparatus 10 (FIG. 2), to at least the air pilot. Automatic detection of lost air-ground communication is known; e.g. in UAV's; for example, if one side fails to receive from the other side an expected communication in an expected time slot for a predetermined number of communication cycles; or if an expected ack signal fails to arrive e.g. for a predetermined number of communication cycles”; Para 359 “If a predetermined time window (Ti) has elapsed (e.g. 5 minutes, or 3 min, or 10 min, or values therebetween) and neither air pilot nor remote pilot have taken over, AMC 15 assumes continuous incapacitation pilot with lost uplink and operates accordingly e.g.: resets the navigation system to land at the nearest suitable airport; sets aircraft systems to follow descent approach, landing and after landing procedures and transmits, on ATC emergency frequency, its situation and the new rerouting. The AMC 15 is typically able to carry out emergency landing on a runway without ILS (instrument landing system), e.g. as in IAI UAV's such as Heron”) while Osipychev further teaches AI control system (Osipychev: Para 32 “The aircraft 100 also includes a mission management system (MMS) 210. The MMS is a subsystem configured to manage missions of the aircraft. A mission is a deployment of the aircraft (one or more aircraft) to achieve one or more mission objectives”; Para 40 “The MMS 210 is configured to determine the predicted states of the aircraft from the maneuvers. In various examples, the predicted states are determined from the maneuvers, and using the surrogate model of the environment 304. In other examples, the predicted states are determined from the maneuvers, and using a transition model that is separate and independent from the surrogate model”; Para 41 “The MMS 210 is configured to generate a collision avoidance trajectory from the predicted states of the aircraft. FIG. 3 illustrates two possible collision avoidance trajectories 308A, 308B that may be generated”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Shavit and Osipychev as in Claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein:
the NLP system is coupled directly or indirectly to one or more radio devices or one or more ADS-B (automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast) systems installed on the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 299 “if the aircraft was being controlled by remote pilot and the aircraft management computer discerns that uplink from the ground was lost, the aircraft management computer transition the piloting mode from pilot-in-command=remote-pilot, to automatic (134) and a warning is provided, via alarm apparatus 10 (FIG. 2), to at least the air pilot. Automatic detection of lost air-ground communication is known; e.g. in UAV's; for example, if one side fails to receive from the other side an expected communication in an expected time slot for a predetermined number of communication cycles; or if an expected ack signal fails to arrive e.g. for a predetermined number of communication cycles”);
the NLP system analyzes the communications received via the one or more radio devices or the one or more ADS-B systems and generates analysis information corresponding to the communication(Shavit: Para 299 “if the aircraft was being controlled by remote pilot and the aircraft management computer discerns that uplink from the ground was lost, the aircraft management computer transition the piloting mode from pilot-in-command=remote-pilot, to automatic (134) and a warning is provided, via alarm apparatus 10 (FIG. 2), to at least the air pilot. Automatic detection of lost air-ground communication is known; e.g. in UAV's; for example, if one side fails to receive from the other side an expected communication in an expected time slot for a predetermined number of communication cycles; or if an expected ack signal fails to arrive e.g. for a predetermined number of communication cycles”)s; and
the autonomous controller executes the one or more actions based, at least in part, on the analysis information generated by the NLP system(Shavit: Para 299 “if the aircraft was being controlled by remote pilot and the aircraft management computer discerns that uplink from the ground was lost, the aircraft management computer transition the piloting mode from pilot-in-command=remote-pilot, to automatic (134) and a warning is provided, via alarm apparatus 10 (FIG. 2), to at least the air pilot. Automatic detection of lost air-ground communication is known; e.g. in UAV's; for example, if one side fails to receive from the other side an expected communication in an expected time slot for a predetermined number of communication cycles; or if an expected ack signal fails to arrive e.g. for a predetermined number of communication cycles”; Para 359 “If a predetermined time window (Ti) has elapsed (e.g. 5 minutes, or 3 min, or 10 min, or values therebetween) and neither air pilot nor remote pilot have taken over, AMC 15 assumes continuous incapacitation pilot with lost uplink and operates accordingly e.g.: resets the navigation system to land at the nearest suitable airport; sets aircraft systems to follow descent approach, landing and after landing procedures and transmits, on ATC emergency frequency, its situation and the new rerouting. The AMC 15 is typically able to carry out emergency landing on a runway without ILS (instrument landing system), e.g. as in IAI UAV's such as Heron”).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein the one or more override controls are implemented using at least one of:
Voice-based override commands that can be spoken by the single onboard pilot or the remote pilot;
interactive options presented on one or more display devices located in a cockpit of the multi-pilot aircraft or at the copilot ground base station; or
physical controls located in the cockpit of the multi-pilot aircraft or at the copilot ground base station(Shavit: Para 273 “Transition (131) At (110) mode, if onboard pilot (P) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to P, the system transfers to mode (101)”; Para 273 “Transition (136) At (112) mode, if remote pilot (RP) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to RP, the system transfers to (105) mode”; Para 295 “each transition occurs immediately upon request by the pilot expressing willingness to be pilot in command (PIC), even lacking the other pilot's consent. Priority may be defined if both pilots express the same, simultaneously, e.g. the air pilot may enjoy priority over the remote pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (125) onboard pilot grabs the control from the remote pilot (RP). (131) onboard pilot grabs the control from automatic system”).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein the single onboard pilot is provided access to both:
the one or more override controls that enable the single onboard pilot to override any actions undertaken by the autonomous controller with respect to autonomously controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 273 “Transition (131) At (110) mode, if onboard pilot (P) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to P, the system transfers to mode (101)”; Para 295 “each transition occurs immediately upon request by the pilot expressing willingness to be pilot in command (PIC), even lacking the other pilot's consent. Priority may be defined if both pilots express the same, simultaneously, e.g. the air pilot may enjoy priority over the remote pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (125) onboard pilot grabs the control from the remote pilot (RP). (131) onboard pilot grabs the control from automatic system”); and
one or more additional override controls that enable the single onboard pilot to override control of the multi-pilot aircraft by the remote pilot and/or sever the connection to the copilot GBS(Shavit: Para 273 “Transition (125) At (106) mode, onboard pilot (P) may take control by moving control switch 150 or 155 to position P. Piloting may be set to P typically without remote pilot (RP) needing to confirm”; Para 295 “Mode which emphasizes avoiding time delay: each transition occurs immediately upon request by the pilot expressing willingness to be pilot in command (PIC), even lacking the other pilot's consent. Priority may be defined if both pilots express the same, simultaneously, e.g. the air pilot may enjoy priority over the remote pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (125) onboard pilot grabs the control from the remote pilot (RP). (131) onboard pilot grabs the control from automatic system”).
As per claim 14, it recites A method of operating a multi-pilot aircraft that includes an onboard pilot assistance architecture that adapts the multi-pilot aircraft for single pilot operation having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
As per claim 15, it recites An aircraft system that permits a multi-pilot aircraft to be operated by a single onboard pilot having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches wherein the one or more override controls are configured to enable both the single onboard pilot and the remote pilot to override an action undertaken by the one or more decision-making functions executed by the autonomous controller with respect to autonomously navigating, maneuvering, or modifying a flight path of the multi-pilot aircraft(Shavit: Para 327 “Remote Pilot (RP) and aircraft management computer (AMC) may control the flight path only by managing the auto pilot and auto throttle”; Para 273 “Transition (131) At (110) mode, if onboard pilot (P) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to P, the system transfers to mode (101)”; Para 273 “Transition (136) At (112) mode, if remote pilot (RP) selects Piloting Mode Selector (PMS) to RP, the system transfers to (105) mode”; Para 295 “each transition occurs immediately upon request by the pilot expressing willingness to be pilot in command (PIC), even lacking the other pilot's consent. Priority may be defined if both pilots express the same, simultaneously, e.g. the air pilot may enjoy priority over the remote pilot. In the example of FIG. 7, some or all of the following transitions may operate within this mode: (125) onboard pilot grabs the control from the remote pilot (RP). (131) onboard pilot grabs the control from automatic system”).
Claim 4-5, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US20180290729A1) and Osipychev (US20230245575A1) further in view of Bosworth (US20190090800A1).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1.
Yet the combination of Shavit and Osipychev do not explicitly teach wherein the Al control system includes a natural language processing (NLP) system configured to:
notify the single onboard pilot and the remote pilot of one or more actions that have been undertaken, or which are intended to be undertaken, by the autonomous controller in connection with autonomously controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft; and
receive an override command from either the single onboard pilot or the remote pilot for overriding, cancelling, or modifying the one or more actions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bosworth teaches wherein the Al control system includes a natural language processing (NLP) system configured to:
notify the single onboard pilot and the remote pilot of one or more actions that have been undertaken, or which are intended to be undertaken, by the autonomous controller in connection with autonomously controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft(Bosworth: Para 222 “If the pilot's fitness is determined to be other than normal (e.g., red 964, yellow 966) the pilot may be prompted by the system 900 (e.g., via HMI and/or other GUI) to confirm the machine-determined state of the pilot's condition, in steps 970 and 976. Confirmation serves as a fail-safe step, such as before the automated system is commanded to take action in step 974, if the pilot's incapacitation diagnosis is erroneous. Similarly, a question may be asked to the ground station via the communication system”; Para 223 “an alert may be sent via the communication system to ground station, in step 972. Additionally or alternatively, actions can be taken if the pilot fails to confirm the request in step 970. As shown in step 974, the ground crew may take over to remote control the aircraft. Additionally or alternatively, the ground crew may also prepare for auto-landing procedure at the airport”); and
receive an override command from either the single onboard pilot or the remote pilot for overriding, cancelling, or modifying the one or more actions(Bosworth: Para 222 “If the pilot's fitness is determined to be other than normal (e.g., red 964, yellow 966) the pilot may be prompted by the system 900 (e.g., via HMI and/or other GUI) to confirm the machine-determined state of the pilot's condition, in steps 970 and 976. Confirmation serves as a fail-safe step, such as before the automated system is commanded to take action in step 974, if the pilot's incapacitation diagnosis is erroneous. Similarly, a question may be asked to the ground station via the communication system”; Para 223 “an alert may be sent via the communication system to ground station, in step 972. Additionally or alternatively, actions can be taken if the pilot fails to confirm the request in step 970. As shown in step 974, the ground crew may take over to remote control the aircraft. Additionally or alternatively, the ground crew may also prepare for auto-landing procedure at the airport”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft system of the combination of Shavit and Osipychev with the feature of wherein the Al control system includes a natural language processing (NLP) system configured to: notify the single onboard pilot and the remote pilot of one or more actions that have been undertaken, or which are intended to be undertaken, by the autonomous controller in connection with autonomously controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft; and receive an override command from either the single onboard pilot or the remote pilot for overriding, cancelling, or modifying the one or more actions disclosed by Bosworth. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “adjust or actuate one or more flight controls of the aircraft as a function of the determined incapacitation level” (Bosworth: Para 11).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Shavit further teaches a communications management system installed on the aircraft controls communications with the remote pilot(Shavit: Para 181 “Data link communication with ground station is done by redundant SAT COM units (17) and antennas (34)”) while Bosworth further teaches the communications management system transmits one or more notifications to the remote pilot via the at least one data link which identify one or more actions that have been initiated, or will be initiated, by the autonomous controller for controlling operation of the multi-pilot aircraft(Bosworth: Para 222 “If the pilot's fitness is determined to be other than normal (e.g., red 964, yellow 966) the pilot may be prompted by the system 900 (e.g., via HMI and/or other GUI) to confirm the machine-determined state of the pilot's condition, in steps 970 and 976. Confirmation serves as a fail-safe step, such as before the automated system is commanded to take action in step 974, if the pilot's incapacitation diagnosis is erroneous. Similarly, a question may be asked to the ground station via the communication system”; Para 223 “an alert may be sent via the communication system to ground station, in step 972. Additionally or alternatively, actions can be taken if the pilot fails to confirm the request in step 970. As shown in step 974, the ground crew may take over to remote control the aircraft. Additionally or alternatively, the ground crew may also prepare for auto-landing procedure at the airport”); and
an override command is transmitted by the remote pilot over the network to the multi-pilot aircraft to override, cancel, or modify the one or more actions initiated by the autonomous controller(Bosworth: Para 222 “If the pilot's fitness is determined to be other than normal (e.g., red 964, yellow 966) the pilot may be prompted by the system 900 (e.g., via HMI and/or other GUI) to confirm the machine-determined state of the pilot's condition, in steps 970 and 976. Confirmation serves as a fail-safe step, such as before the automated system is commanded to take action in step 974, if the pilot's incapacitation diagnosis is erroneous. Similarly, a question may be asked to the ground station via the communication system”; Para 223 “an alert may be sent via the communication system to ground station, in step 972. Additionally or alternatively, actions can be taken if the pilot fails to confirm the request in step 970. As shown in step 974, the ground crew may take over to remote control the aircraft. Additionally or alternatively, the ground crew may also prepare for auto-landing procedure at the airport”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Shavit, Osipychev, and Bosworth as in Claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1, and Bosworth further teaches the Al control system includes a computer vision system configured to receive visual data captured inside of the multi-pilot aircraft (Bosworth: Para 147 “The health controller 602 may employ the one or more cameras 410 of the perception system 106 to determine whether the pilot's body posture is poor (e.g., hunched over/slouched) or the pilot's apparent motor coordination is off (e.g., erratic, sluggish, unable to manipulate the controls, etc.), in which case the health controller 602 may determine that the pilot is incapacitated (e.g., unconscious, dead, and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol)”);
the computer vision system analyzes the visual data to generate analysis information corresponding to an interior environment of the multi-pilot aircraft(Bosworth: Para 147 “The health controller 602 may employ the one or more cameras 410 of the perception system 106 to determine whether the pilot's body posture is poor (e.g., hunched over/slouched) or the pilot's apparent motor coordination is off (e.g., erratic, sluggish, unable to manipulate the controls, etc.), in which case the health controller 602 may determine that the pilot is incapacitated (e.g., unconscious, dead, and/or under the influence of drugs or alcohol)”); and
the autonomous controller executes one or more actions based the analysis information generated by the computer vision system(Bosworth: Para 147 “Auto-Land Trigger. Promptly and accurately triggering the aircrew automation system 100 to generate a command to perform the auto-descent and/or auto-land procedure(s) in an emergency is imperative. Accordingly, an aircrew health data feed from aircrew health monitoring system 160 to the core platform 102 may further include an auto-descent and/or auto-land command to initiate the auto-descent and auto-landing procedures upon the occurrence of an auto-land trigger. The auto-land trigger may be, for example, a direct command from the operator (e.g., the pilot or other aircrew member) or generated automatically (e.g., by the health controller 602) based at least in part on data received from the vital sensors 606, the perception system 106, and/or, the HMI system 104”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Shavit, Osipychev, and Bosworth as in Claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Shavit, Osipychev, and Bosworth teaches The aircraft system of claim 10, and Shavit further teaches wherein the autonomous controller executes the one or more actions in response to:
interpreting data presented on an instrument or display located in a cockpit of the multi-pilot aircraft;
identifying equipment inside the multi-pilot aircraft that has been damaged or which is malfunctioning(Shavit: Para 359 “If, once a predetermined time period (Te) from the transition to PIC=AMC has elapsed (e.g. 1 minute or order of magnitude 1 minute), the AMC detects an emergency situation that requires an immediate response, using predetermined rules, the AMC 15 performs immediate actions required e.g. as defined by aircraft flight manual emergency procedures. For example, if cabin pressure declines to below a predetermined value, the AMC 15 may initiate emergency descent procedure e.g. as implemented automatically in IAI G-280”);
analyzing activities of passengers located in a passenger cabin of the multi-pilot aircraft; or
monitoring conditions in a cargo bay of the multi-pilot aircraft.
Claim 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shavit (US20180290729A1) and Osipychev (US20230245575A1) further in view of Iskrev (US20170308100A1).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Shavit and Osipychev teaches The aircraft system of claim 1
Yet the combination of Shavit and Osipychev do not explicitly teach the Al control system includes a computer vision system configured to receive visual data captured by an exterior vision system of the multi-pilot aircraft;
the computer vision system analyzes the visual data to generate analysis information corresponding to an exterior environment of the multi-pilot aircraft ; and
the autonomous controller executes one or more actions based, at least in part, on the analysis information generated by the computer vision system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iskrev teaches the Al control system includes a computer vision system configured to receive visual data captured by an exterior vision system of the multi-pilot aircraft(Iskrev: Para 37 “The UAV 12 further includes one or more electromagnetic wave detectors 28. The electromagnetic wave detectors 28 may be, for example, a visual or multispectral camera or detector, used to search for and track the position of a landmark, e.g., landmark 24 relative to the camera/detector 28. Data from the electromagnetic wave detectors 28 is preferably interfaced to and processed by the control module of the UAV 12. Pictures (diagrams) and/or video from electromagnetic wave detectors 28 can be transmitted to an observer, e.g., observer 20, and to the pilot, e.g., pilot 16, at appropriate points of time, e.g., over a wireless communication link 30, as described in detail below”) ;
the computer vision system analyzes the visual data to generate analysis information corresponding to an exterior environment of the multi-pilot aircraft(Iskrev: Para 46 “the landing algorithm used by the control module of the UAV 12 is an onboard software component, which is responsible for controlling the UAV 12 during an identification phase, a landing trajectory planning phase, and a tracking and positioning phase. The identification phase includes the initial detection of the landmark 24 based on the pinpointed location of the landmark 24 on the aerial photograph, and detecting the landmark's existence and relative position to the UAV 12. During the landing trajectory planning phase, depending on the relative position of the aircraft to the landmark and the desired landing strategy, the landing algorithm calculates a reference/planned landing trajectory for the landing and touchdown stages of flight, which should be followed by the aircraft to reach the position of the landing platform”); and
the autonomous controller executes one or more actions based, at least in part, on the analysis information generated by the computer vision system(Iskrev: Para 46 “the landing algorithm used by the control module of the UAV 12 is an onboard software component, which is responsible for controlling the UAV 12 during an identification phase, a landing trajectory planning phase, and a tracking and positioning phase. The identification phase includes the initial detection of the landmark 24 based on the pinpointed location of the landmark 24 on the aerial photograph, and detecting the landmark's existence and relative position to the UAV 12. During the landing trajectory planning phase, depending on the relative position of the aircraft to the landmark and the desired landing strategy, the landing algorithm calculates a reference/planned landing trajectory for the landing and touchdown stages of flight, which should be followed by the aircraft to reach the position of the landing platform”; Para 19 “The control module is configured to autonomously control descent of the unmanned aerial vehicle to the landing point”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify The aircraft system of the combination of Shavit and Osipychev with the feature of the Al control system includes a computer vision system configured to receive visual data captured by an exterior vision system of the multi-pilot aircraft; the computer vision system analyzes the visual data to generate analysis information corresponding to an exterior environment of the multi-pilot aircraft; and the autonomous controller executes one or more actions based, at least in part, on the analysis information generated by the computer vision system disclosed by Iskrev. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “automated landing of an aircraft of UAV in a variety of landing scenarios” (Iskrev: Para 5).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Shavit, Osipychev, and Iskrev teaches The aircraft system of claim 8, and Shavit further teaches wherein the autonomous controller executes the one or more actions in response to the analysis information identifying:
one or more air-based obstacles in or near a flight path of the aircraft(Shavit: Para 358 “If collision avoidance system activates resolution advisory flight guidance, AMC 15 may set the auto pilot to follow that guidance. Upon back to clear from conflict status, the AMC 15 may restore auto pilot to the previous set up”);
one or more ground-based obstacles in or near a landing surface;
weather conditions in a current vicinity of the aircraft or in an upcoming flight path of the aircraft;
air traffic conditions in or near a flight path of the aircraft; or
an unapproved landing surface for landing the aircraft in an emergency situation.
The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references Shavit, Osipychev, and Iskrev as in Claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCusker(US9384586B1) disclosed improved EFVS capable of providing imagery on an HDD that is useful to a PM to verify the reliability and accuracy of the EFVS, and to determine that the PF is taking appropriate action during approach and landing procedures.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/9/26
Prosecution Insights