DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim 1-5, 7, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fournier et al. (US 20160019793A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fournier teaches a method comprising:
receiving aviation data from an unverified device (see [0030] where EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) is in a portable manner that interacts with avionic equipment, and EFB is not generally certified, i.e. unverified device.);
processing the aviation data using a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model to identify an aviation related error associated with the aviation data (see [0042]-[0047] where EFB receives ground data from a flight planning system, deciphers the data and verifies the checksum and transmit flight plan to Flight Management System (FMS). Note that in Fig. 3 and [0047], while flight plan is being transmitted to the FMS, there is an aircraft interface equipment that retrieves data from EFB and verifies the data consistency according to pre-established rules, i.e. a verification model for checking or identifying an aviation related error associated with aviation data. Further, in [0042]-[0049], system includes FMS retrieval and validation, aircraft interface emulates a communication protocol, and EFB ensures security and integrity of data, i.e. composite aviation operations verification model.); and
in an instance in which the aviation related error is not identified in the aviation data, initiating performance of one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the aviation related error not being identified by the processing of the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model (see [0047]-[0049] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model, and when the data is verified, the flight plan data is transmitted to avionics protocol and bus and to FMS to propose to a pilot for validation.).
Regarding claim 2, Fournier teaches the method of claim 1, wherein initiating performance of the one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the aviation related error not being identified by the processing of the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises (see [0047]-[0049] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model, and when the data is verified, the flight plan data is transmitted to avionics protocol and bus and to FMS to propose to a pilot for validation.):
initiating performance of a first aviation related action that comprises transmitting the aviation data to one or more verified devices (see [0046] and [0049] where flight plan is transmitted to FMS and FMS retrieves the flight plan that is verified and validated by certified avionic system. Note also in [0030] that onboard equipment, which includes FMS, is certified and regulated, i.e. verified device.).
Regarding claim 3, Fournier teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the verified device is a flight management system (see [0030] where onboard equipment, which includes FMS (Flight Management System) is certified and regulated, i.e. verified device.).
Regarding claim 4, Fournier teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the flight management system is physically located on an aircraft (see [0030] and Fig. 1 where FMS is part of onboard equipment that is located at a flight cabin or a cockpit.).
Regarding claim 5, Fournier teaches the method of claim 1, wherein initiating performance of the one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the aviation related error not being identified by the processing of the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises (see [0047]-[0049] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model, and when the data is verified, the flight plan data is transmitted to avionics protocol and bus and to FMS to propose to a pilot for validation.):
initiating performance of a first aviation related action that comprises causing operation of one or more verified devices based at least in part on the aviation data (see Fig. 2 and [0038] where FMS functions includes navigation, trajectory, predictions, and a guidance function, i.e. aviation related action that comprises causing operation of a verified device, that guides an aircraft using flight plan, i.e. aviation data, which is retrieved from a certified avionics system as shown in [0049] and Fig. 4.).
Regarding claim 7, Fournier teaches the method of claim 1, wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a semantic constraint check component of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error (see [0047] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model that applies aviation data to a semantic constraint.).
Regarding claim 16 Fournier teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory including computer-coded instructions thereon, the computer coded instructions, with the at least one processor (see [0030]-[0039] in general where a cockpit of an aircraft has one or more computers that have means of computation, of saving and of storing data, i.e. computer with processors and memory that has computer coded instructions to perform functions, such as flight plan and guidance.), cause the apparatus to:
receive aviation data from an unverified device (see [0030] where EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) is in a portable manner that interacts with avionic equipment, and EFB is not generally certified, i.e. unverified device.);
process the aviation data using a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model to identify an aviation related error associated with the aviation data (see [0042]-[0047] where EFB receives ground data from a flight planning system, deciphers the data and verifies the checksum and transmit flight plan to Flight Management System (FMS). Note that in Fig. 3 and [0047], while flight plan is being transmitted to the FMS, there is an aircraft interface equipment that retrieves data from EFB and verifies the data consistency according to pre-established rules, i.e. a verification model for checking or identifying an aviation related error associated with aviation data. Further, in [0042]-[0049], system includes FMS retrieval and validation, aircraft interface emulates a communication protocol, and EFB ensures security and integrity of data, i.e. composite aviation operations verification model.); and
in an instance in which the aviation related error is not identified in the aviation data, initiate performance of one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the aviation related error not being identified by the processing of the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model (see [0047]-[0049] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model, and when the data is verified, the flight plan data is transmitted to avionics protocol and bus and to FMS to propose to a pilot for validation.).
Regarding claim 18, Fournier teaches the apparatus of claim 16, wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a semantic constraint check component of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error (see [0047] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model that applies aviation data to a semantic constraint.).
Regarding claim 20, Fournier teaches a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor (see [0030]-[0039] in general where a cockpit of an aircraft has one or more computers that have means of computation, of saving and of storing data, i.e. computer with processors and memory that has computer program code to perform functions, such as flight plan and guidance.), configures the computer program product for:
receive aviation data from an unverified device (see [0030] where EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) is in a portable manner that interacts with avionic equipment, and EFB is not generally certified, i.e. unverified device.);
process the aviation data using a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model to identify an aviation related error associated with the aviation data (see [0042]-[0047] where EFB receives ground data from a flight planning system, deciphers the data and verifies the checksum and transmit flight plan to Flight Management System (FMS). Note that in Fig. 3 and [0047], while flight plan is being transmitted to the FMS, there is an aircraft interface equipment that retrieves data from EFB and verifies the data consistency according to pre-established rules, i.e. a verification model for checking or identifying an aviation related error associated with aviation data. Further, in [0042]-[0049], system includes FMS retrieval and validation, aircraft interface emulates a communication protocol, and EFB ensures security and integrity of data, i.e. composite aviation operations verification model.); and
in an instance in which the aviation related error is not identified in the aviation data, initiate performance of one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the aviation related error not being identified by the processing of the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model (see [0047]-[0049] where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model, and when the data is verified, the flight plan data is transmitted to avionics protocol and bus and to FMS to propose to a pilot for validation.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Mere (US 20170343357A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fournier teaches the method of claim 1,
Fournier does not teach: wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a syntactic validator component of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error.
However, Mere teaches an electronic flight device, such as an EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) or some laptop computer or tablet, that sends navigation data from open world such as route, weather, or the like, i.e. aviation data, to flight management system (FMS) which comprises of two levels of protection where a first level of protection implemented by a filter unit, which is linked to an exchange protocol and to a format of a data, that rejects frames, i.e. aviation data, if they do not have expected format, i.e. syntactic validation component (see [0049]-[0050] and [0060]-[0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies, before sending to a flight management system, consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Mere such that flight management system also comprises a first level of protection that filters flight data from an unverified device, such as an EFB, that do not have expected format, i.e. apply aviation data to syntactic validation component of a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model.
Regarding claim 17, Fournier teaches the apparatus of claim 16,
Fournier does not teach: wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a syntactic validator component of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error.
However, Mere teaches an electronic flight device, such as an EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) or some laptop computer or tablet, that sends navigation data from open world such as route, weather, or the like, i.e. aviation data, to flight management system (FMS) which comprises of two levels of protection where a first level of protection implemented by a filter unit, which is linked to an exchange protocol and to a format of a data, that rejects frames, i.e. aviation data, if they do not have expected format, i.e. syntactic validation component (see [0049]-[0050] and [0060]-[0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies, before sending to a flight management system, consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Mere such that flight management system also comprises a first level of protection that filters flight data from an unverified device, such as an EFB, that do not have expected format, i.e. apply aviation data to syntactic validation component of a first portion of a composite aviation operations verification model.
The motivation to have a first level of protection to filter, i.e. have syntactic validation component, aviation data that do not have expected format is that, as indicated by Mere, this would allow for simplifying tasks of crew relative to management of mission of an aircraft, enable the crew flexibility to prepare missions in advance or modify them when necessary, lower costs, have homogeneity, and greater flexibility of modification or installation of devices, and prevent sending of corrupted data or installing malware that can jeopardize safety of an aircraft (see [0005]-[0011]).
4. Claims 8-13 and 19 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Italo et al. (US 12444311B2).
Regarding claim 8, Fournier teaches the method of claim 1,
Fournier also teaches an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a semantic constraint check (see [0047]).
Fournier does not teach: wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a semantic constraint machine learning model of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error.
However, Italo teaches user interface that is onboard an aircraft ([col 4 lns 57-67]) that has a validation sub-system and a control unit that uses Recurrent Neural Network model, i.e. machine learning model, that detects if segments or attributes of a flight plan are valid or invalid (see [col 12 lns 31-54]). Note also that Italo teaches in [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 33] that the control unit and the validation sub-system determines if the flight plan continues to be valid for present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. semantic constraint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that a user interface that has a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system to use Recurrent Neural Network model, which is a machine learning model, that determines if the flight plan data is valid for present airspace rules, which is a semantic constraint.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fournier in view of Italo teaches the method of claim 8,
Fournier also teaches verifying flight plan data where aircraft interface equipment verifies consistency according to pre-established rules, and FMS retrieves the flight plan data that are verified and validated by a certified avionics systems (see [0047] and [0049]).
Italo further teaches machine learning model, including Recurrent Neural Network model, that are trained and re-trained using feedback from one or more prior analyses of data that includes flight plan validity relative to airspace rules to improve flight plan determination (see [col 14 lns 32-65], [col 12 lns 31-54], and [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules and retrieved by FMS of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that Recurrent Neural Network model, which is a machine learning model, that determines if the flight plan data is valid for present airspace rules as well as in compliance with pre-established rules, which is a semantic constraint, is trained and re-trained using feedback from one or more prior analysis of the data.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model, which is trained and re-trained using feedback of prior analysis of flight plan data, to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 10, Fournier teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
Fournier does not teach: in an instance in which the aviation related error is identified in the aviation data, processing the aviation related error using a second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model; and
initiating performance of one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the processing of the aviation related error using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model.
However, Italo teaches a rejection message from a validation sub-system that is determined based on if a flight plan is valid for a present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. aviation related error identified, and based on invalidity as temporary or permanent, the flight plan marks segment as temporarily unavailable or removes the flight plan or invalid segment, i.e. processing aviation error and performing one or more aviation related actions based on aviation related error (see [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data from an EFB, i.e. unverified device, under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that validation sub-system sends a rejection message based on invalid flight plan for present circumstances and airspace rules, and mark segment as temporarily unavailable for temporary invalid segment of flight plan and remove flight plan or invalid segment if they are permanent, i.e. one or more aviation related actions based on aviation related error.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model, which is trained and re-trained using feedback of prior analysis of flight plan data, to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fournier in view of Italo teaches the method of claim 10, wherein initiating performance of the one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the processing of the aviation related error using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises (see Italo [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 32] where a rejection message from a validation sub-system that is determined based on if a flight plan is valid for a present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. aviation related error identified, and based on invalidity as temporary or permanent, the flight plan marks segment as temporarily unavailable or removes the flight plan or invalid segment, i.e. processing aviation error and performing one or more aviation related actions based on aviation related error.):
Fourier also teaches onboard equipment, which includes FMS (Flight Management System) is certified and regulated, i.e. verified device (see [0030]).
Italo further teaches a validation status signal that sends a message regarding whether or not a flight plan is valid to a control unit (see [col 9 lns 4-32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules and transmit verified flight plan data to FMS that is certified and regulated, i.e. verified device, of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that a validation status signal that sends a message regarding whether or not a flight plan is valid, which is performing of a first aviation related action that comprises transmitting an aviation alert, to a FMS, a verified device, which also includes a control unit.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model, which is trained and re-trained using feedback of prior analysis of flight plan data, to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules and sending a status signal with a message regarding valid or invalid flight plan is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Fournier in view of Italo teaches the method of claim 10, wherein initiating performance of the one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the processing of the aviation related error using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises (see Italo [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 32] where a rejection message from a validation sub-system that is determined based on if a flight plan is valid for a present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. aviation related error identified, and based on invalidity as temporary or permanent, the flight plan marks segment as temporarily unavailable or removes the flight plan or invalid segment, i.e. processing aviation error and performing one or more aviation related actions based on aviation related error.):
Fournier also teaches EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) that is in a portable manner that interacts with avionic equipment, and EFB is not generally certified, i.e. unverified device (see [0030]).
Italo further teaches a flight plan generating control unit that receives validation status signal including a message and output a validation signal to a user interface, which can be a handheld device such as smart phone, smart tablet, or the like (see [col 9 lns 4-44] and [col 4 lns 57-67]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that a validation status signal that sends a message regarding whether or not a flight plan is valid, which is performing of a first aviation related action that comprises transmitting an aviation alert, to a user interface that is handheld device, such as a smart phone or smart tablet, i.e. an unverified device as defined by Fournier EFB.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model, which is trained and re-trained using feedback of prior analysis of flight plan data, to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules and sending a status signal with a message regarding valid or invalid flight plan is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fournier in view of Italo teaches the method of claim 10, wherein initiating performance of the one or more aviation related actions based at least in part on the processing of the aviation related error using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises (see Italo [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 32] where a rejection message from a validation sub-system that is determined based on if a flight plan is valid for a present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. aviation related error identified, and based on invalidity as temporary or permanent, the flight plan marks segment as temporarily unavailable or removes the flight plan or invalid segment, i.e. processing aviation error and performing one or more aviation related actions based on aviation related error.):
Fournier also teaches onboard equipment, including FMS and computers, of an aircraft as certified and regulated, i.e. verified device (see [0030]).
Italo further teaches a flight plan generating control unit, based on rejection message from a validation sub-system, i.e. aviation related error, that would mark segments that are temporarily unavailable and/or remove flight plan or invalid segment from a flight plan if invalidity is permanent (see [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 32]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify onboard equipment, including FMS and computers, of an aircraft as certified and regulated, i.e. verified device of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that a flight plan generating control unit, which is an onboard equipment of an aircraft that is a verified device as shown in Fournier, to mark segments that are temporarily unavailable and/or remove flight plan or invalid segment from a flight plan if invalidity is permanent, i.e. operation of verified device, based on rejection message from a validation sub-system, i.e. aviation related error.
The motivation to have a flight plan generating control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model, which is trained and re-trained using feedback of prior analysis of flight plan data, to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules and sending a status signal with a message regarding valid or invalid flight plan that causes marking and removal of a flight plan is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 19, Fournier teaches the apparatus of claim 16,
Fournier also teaches an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules, i.e. a semantic constraint check (see [0047]).
Fournier does not teach: wherein processing the aviation data using the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprises applying the aviation data to a semantic constraint machine learning model of the first portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to identify the aviation related error.
However, Italo teaches user interface that is onboard an aircraft ([col 4 lns 57-67]) that has a validation sub-system and a control unit that uses Recurrent Neural Network model, i.e. machine learning model, that detects if segments or attributes of a flight plan are valid or invalid (see [col 12 lns 31-54]). Note also that Italo teaches in [col 7 ln 62 thru col 8 ln 33] that the control unit and the validation sub-system determines if the flight plan continues to be valid for present circumstances and airspace rules, i.e. semantic constraint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify an aircraft interface equipment that verifies consistency of a flight plan data under pre-established compliance rules of Fournier by incorporating teaching of Italo such that a user interface that has a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system to use Recurrent Neural Network model, which is a machine learning model, that determines if the flight plan data is valid for present airspace rules, which is a semantic constraint.
The motivation to have a control unit in communication with a validation sub-system that uses machine learning model of Recurrent Neural Network model to determine valid and compliance of pre-established airspace rules is that, as indicated by Italo, this would allow for generating flight plans that are compatible with constraints imposed by an airspace authority and consider in accordance with dynamic nature of airspace constraints and condition, and also allow for most optimal quantities of payload and fuel, as well as accurately managing timing of resource allocation (see [col 1 ln 11 thru col 2 ln 9]).
5. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier in view of Italo in further view of Naimer et al. (US 20040111192A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fournier in view of Italo teaches the method of claim 10,
Modified Fournier in view of Italo does not teach: wherein processing the aviation data using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprise applying the aviation related error to an uncertainty estimation component of the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model to generate error impact data.
However, Naimer teaches maximum allowable horizontal and vertical deviation along a flight path and vertical tolerance for margin of safety against proximity of intended flight path to terrain, and alert function occurs if altitude is less than or equal to a terrain altitude value associated with a grid element and an alert graphics would occur if there is a lack thereof terrain clearance, i.e. uncertainty estimation component of checking whether or not altitude of an aircraft is within a tolerance, which is determining acceptable or unacceptable aviation related error (see [0037], [0052], and [0059]-[0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify onboard equipment of an aircraft as certified and regulated, i.e. verified device, that includes a flight plan generating control unit to mark segments that are temporarily unavailable and/or remove flight plan or invalid segment from a flight plan if invalidity is permanent based on rejection message from a validation sub-system, i.e. processing aviation related error and operation of verified device, of modified Fournier in view Italo by incorporating teaching of Naimer such that process and operation includes a vertical tolerance, i.e. uncertainty estimation component, of aircraft altitude, i.e. aviation related error, which is used to alert or send rejection message based on whether or not aviation related error of altitude is within a tolerance, i.e. error impact data.
The motivation to have a vertical tolerance of an aircraft and an alert indication if aviation related error of altitude is beyond a tolerance with a validation sub-system is that, as indicated by Naimer, this would allow for pre-checking of intended flight path that provides advanced warning for correction or modification of flight plan data rather an alert or warning too close to a terrain (see [0011]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Fournier in view of Italo and Naimer teaches the method of claim 14, wherein processing the aviation data using the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model comprise applying the error impact data to an error handling component of the second portion of the composite aviation operations verification model (see Naimer [0052] and [0059]-[0061] where it shows vertical tolerance for margin of safety against proximity of intended flight path to terrain, and alert function occurs if altitude is less than or equal to a terrain altitude value associated with a grid element, as well as an alert graphics occurs on a screen if there is a lack thereof terrain clearance, i.e. applying error impact data to an error handling component.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify onboard equipment of an aircraft as certified and regulated, i.e. verified device, that includes a flight plan generating control unit to mark segments that are temporarily unavailable and/or remove flight plan or invalid segment from a flight plan if invalidity is permanent based on rejection message from a validation sub-system, i.e. processing aviation related error and operation of verified device, of modified Fournier in view Italo by incorporating teaching of Naimer such that process and operation includes a vertical tolerance, i.e. uncertainty estimation component, of aircraft altitude, which is used to make an alert graphics on a screen or send rejection message from based on whether or not aviation related error of altitude is within a tolerance, i.e. error impact data applied to an error handling component of alert system.
The motivation to have a vertical tolerance of an aircraft and an alert indication if aviation related error of altitude is beyond a tolerance with a validation sub-system is that, as indicated by Naimer, this would allow for pre-checking of intended flight path that provides advanced warning for correction or modification of flight plan data rather an alert or warning too close to a terrain (see [0011]).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Ballestros et al. (US 10762792B2), teaches verifying ADS-B messages to detect truthful or untruthful and if it is not erroneous proceed with broadcast.
b. Stollmeyer et al. (US 20240210963A1), teaches machine learning using flight records and other data sources to predict risk or failure.
c. Min et al. (WO 2023219424A1), teaches verifying received information through comparison of current versus previous information and identifying false information in an aviation data.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661