DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward abstract ideas without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a digital flight management system (i.e., a product). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A digital flight management system comprising:
a digital processing environment comprising computer-executable instructions to access:
flight request data related to a flight plan;
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan;
a flight risk data source; and
geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan;
wherein said computer-executable instructions are further executable to:
-calculate a predicted flight path (mental step/process) based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments automatically calculated;
- digitally compare (mental step/process), based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments; and
via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculate…” and “digitally compare…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement or estimation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A digital flight management system comprising:
a digital processing environment comprising computer-executable instructions to access:
flight request data related to a flight plan (extra-solution data gathering);
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan (extra-solution data gathering);
a flight risk data source (extra-solution data gathering);; and
geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan (extra-solution data gathering);
wherein said computer-executable instructions are further executable to:
-calculate a predicted flight path (mental step/process) based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments automatically calculated;
- digitally compare (mental step/process), based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments; and
via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk (extra-solution activity of displaying);.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “…computer-executable instructions to access: flight request data….aircraft parameter data…a flight risk data source…geographical data…” the examiner submits that these limitations are data gathering activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. Data gathering activities, in particular, those recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the evaluating step), are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, displaying the flight path results step on the user interface is also recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere post solution displaying, which also is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of “computer-executable instructions to access: flight request data….aircraft parameter data…a flight risk data source…geographical data..” the examiner submits that this is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 gives more details about the mapping. Claim 3 defines the flight path more. Claim 4 contains further definition of the mental step. Claims 5-6 define the flight risk data source further. Claim 7 defines the aircraft further. Claim 8 defines the method of display further. Claims 9-10 contains two further calculations which can also be considered mental steps. Claim 11 contains another action which can be considered post-solution activity. Claim 12-15 contains further constraints on the flight path segments. Therefore, dependent claims [2-15] are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 16-19:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a computer-readable medium. As explained in U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer-Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010):
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Inspection of the specification does not indicate any limitations of the mentioned computer-readable medium, therefore signals are included under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. Therefore, claim 16 does not fall into any of the statutory categories.
Note that even if claims 16-19 are modified to cover “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” the same arguments as used above in the analysis of claim 1 and dependent claims can be made:
Claim 16:
A [non-transitory] computer-readable medium comprising digital instructions for execution by a digital data processor to:
digitally access: (this corresponds to data gathering)
flight request data related to a flight plan; (data gathered)
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan; (data gathered)
a flight risk data source; (data gathered) and
geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said
flight plan (data gathered) ;
calculate a predicted flight path (mental step/action) based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments;
digitally compare, (mental step/action) based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments; and
via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk. (this is the equivalent of saying “display the results of the mental step”, which is considered unimportant post-solution activity.)
See the arguments above made for claim 1 for further details.
Dependent claims 17-19 follow the analysis above for claims 2, 9-10, and 13-14.
Claims 20-23:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to a digital flight management method. Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20:
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prongs I, II:
A computer-implemented digital flight management method comprising:
digitally accessing: (data gathering)
flight request data related to a flight plan; (data gathered)
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan; (data gathered)
a flight risk data source; (data gathered) and
geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan; (data gathered)
calculating a predicted flight path (mental step/action) based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments;
digitally comparing, (mental step/action) based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a
respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments; and
via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk. (extra-solution activity: displaying)
See the arguments above made for claim 1 for further details.
Dependent claims 21-23 follow the analysis above for claims 2, 9-10, and 13-14.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-23 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12-13, 16,and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2022/0204180 (Sellmann et al., hence Sellmann)
As for claim 1, Sellmann teaches a digital flight management system (Fig. 3) comprising: a digital processing environment comprising computer-executable instructions (Sellmann: "FIG. 2 presents a block diagram or system level diagram of an exemplary controller 130, such as a digital computer, which may be employed according to the present system and method. Digital controller 130 may implement or execute, for example, computer code (software or firmware) which enables the aircraft to perform the decision supports methods and related methods presented in this document."[0046]) to access: flight request data related to a flight plan (Sellmann: this would be the initial flight plan, which is already known. "An airline in flight normally has a planned, scheduled flight route, taking off from a first, known airport, traveling mostly or entirely via a pre-planned route (possibly with some route variations necessitated by unexpected weather, or other aviation emergencies of nearby aircraft, and then landing at a second, designated airport."[0058]) ;
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "As is known in the art, aircraft 100 are deployed with a wide variety of sensors 346 to determine all of: aircraft integrity; aircraft systems operational status; flight status (speed, altitude, direction, etc.); and exterior environmental status (wind speed, temperatures, humidity, etc.)" [0070]);
a flight risk data source (Sellmann: Under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation this can be the Airport reachability calculations and safe landing probabilities 392 generated using the simulations. (See [0039] and [0103]));
and geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "The status information may include, for example and without limitation: the aircraft's geolocation and nose orientation; the current operating conditions of the aircraft itself; and the current weather and other environmental conditions, such as wind speed and precipitation."[0097]);
wherein said computer-executable instructions are further executable to: calculate a predicted flight path based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments automatically calculated (Sellmann: "The assessment is done in part by simulating multiple possible landing options, which may include choices among several local airports, and choices of different flight paths to any one local airport."[0071]; flight path models are recovered from memory, [0102]; that the flight path model is segmented to form a curve "as necessary to delineate a pass to a particular airport" [0103]);
digitally compare, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight [paths] with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight [paths] (Sellmann: This is done by comparing the simulated (multi-segmented) trajectories to determine the risks for each. "In step 400.4, the LOAD 305 creates multiple simulation scenarios for potential landings." [0105]; see [0106]-[0114]);
and via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight [paths] in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellmann: "Step 3: In step 390.3, and in one embodiment of the present system and method, the LDA 300 may present low altitude diversion recommendations 350 to the pilot or co-pilot via the cockpit display/audio system(s) 260." [0074]; " A set of simulation scenarios 506.1 illustrates the probability plots 590 for several different airports, assuming the pilot initiates activity at the thirty (30) second mark after the event. The consequences of further delays, which generally entail reduced probabilities as are rapidly apparent from the chart updated on a pilot display."[0130])
Sellmann does not specifically teach [to] assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments or [to] distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellman discusses the addition of risk through delay being added to each flight scenario at particular times during a candidate trajectory (see [0116]) which would conceivably map onto the segmented flight trajectory, but does not discuss a specific calculation of risk per segment.) However, this is known in the art, as is taught by Sachs: (Sachs: "Exemplary section 840 illustrates a map based upon a flight path provided by an operator (or otherwise previously stored, such as a shared, common, or test flight path which may be stored in advance and available for use by the operator). The flight path is shown broken up into several legs or segments of the flight, such breakdown typically being provided as part of the flight plan. Each segment may have different relevant information, such as a different range of altitude, and may pass over differently zoned or populated areas, so as to require the calculation of a different risk value for each respective section." (underlining added) [0087]; also see Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the calculation of risk per flight segment, as is shown in Sachs, to the trajectory planning system of Sellmann. The motivation would be to determine which were the most dangerous parts of the flight path.
As for claim 3, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said predicted flight path comprises at least an outbound and a return flight path, each one of which comprising respective said multiple flight path segments. (Sachs: See Fig. 8: flight segments 2-5 can be considered an "outbound flight path", while flight segments 6-8 can be considered the return flight path.)
As for claim 5, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said flight risk data source comprises a weather data source. (Sellmann: "The LOAM 305 may also require various dynamic input data 340 which may include, for example and without limitation: real-time local weather data, including temperatures, wind speeds, and storm data, which may be obtained from both on-board aircraft sensors 346 and from remote, third-party weather service reports or airport weather monitoring systems (ground-based or satellite based)..." [0086-0087])
As for claim 12, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, also teaches wherein said predicted flight path comprises an airspace volume, and wherein said flight path is compared with said flight risk data associated with locations defined within said airspace volume. (Sachs: Fig. 5A shows the path of the airplane through a set of airspace cubes (volume) while Figs. 6 and 7 show the process by which risk is calculated.)
As for claim 13, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, also teaches wherein each of said flight path segments comprises a corresponding airspace volume, and wherein each of said flight path segments is compared with said flight risk data associated with locations defined within said corresponding airspace volume. (Sachs: Fig. 5A shows the path of the airplane through a set of airspace cubes (volume) while Figs. 6 and 7 show the process by which risk is calculated. The flight path segments are defined as the entry point and exit point of the trajectory path passing through a particular cube.)
As for claim 16, Sellmann teaches a computer-readable medium comprising digital instructions for execution by a digital data processor to: digital flight management system (Fig. 3) comprising: a digital processing environment comprising computer-executable instructions (Sellmann: "FIG. 2 presents a block diagram or system level diagram of an exemplary controller 130, such as a digital computer, which may be employed according to the present system and method. Digital controller 130 may implement or execute, for example, computer code (software or firmware) which enables the aircraft to perform the decision supports methods and related methods presented in this document."[0046]; “computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium” in claim 1) to digitally access: flight request data related to a flight plan (Sellmann: this would be the initial flight plan, which is already known. "An airline in flight normally has a planned, scheduled flight route, taking off from a first, known airport, traveling mostly or entirely via a pre-planned route (possibly with some route variations necessitated by unexpected weather, or other aviation emergencies of nearby aircraft, and then landing at a second, designated airport."[0058]) ;
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "As is known in the art, aircraft 100 are deployed with a wide variety of sensors 346 to determine all of: aircraft integrity; aircraft systems operational status; flight status (speed, altitude, direction, etc.); and exterior environmental status (wind speed, temperatures, humidity, etc.)" [0070]);
a flight risk data source (Sellmann: Under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation this can be the Airport reachability calculations and safe landing probabilities 392 generated using the simulations. (See [0039] and [0103]));
and geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "The status information may include, for example and without limitation: the aircraft's geolocation and nose orientation; the current operating conditions of the aircraft itself; and the current weather and other environmental conditions, such as wind speed and precipitation."[0097]);
calculate a predicted flight path based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments automatically calculated (Sellmann: "The assessment is done in part by simulating multiple possible landing options, which may include choices among several local airports, and choices of different flight paths to any one local airport."[0071]; flight path models are recovered from memory, [0102]; that the flight path model is segmented to form a curve "as necessary to delineate a pass to a particular airport" [0103]);
digitally compare, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight [paths] with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight [paths] (Sellmann: This is done by comparing the simulated (multi-segmented) trajectories to determine the risks for each. "In step 400.4, the LOAD 305 creates multiple simulation scenarios for potential landings." [0105]; see [0106]-[0114]);
and via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight [paths] in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellmann: "Step 3: In step 390.3, and in one embodiment of the present system and method, the LDA 300 may present low altitude diversion recommendations 350 to the pilot or co-pilot via the cockpit display/audio system(s) 260." [0074]; " A set of simulation scenarios 506.1 illustrates the probability plots 590 for several different airports, assuming the pilot initiates activity at the thirty (30) second mark after the event. The consequences of further delays, which generally entail reduced probabilities as are rapidly apparent from the chart updated on a pilot display."[0130])
Sellmann does not specifically teach [to] assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments or [to] distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellman discusses the addition of risk through delay being added to each flight scenario at particular times during a candidate trajectory (see [0116]) which would conceivably map onto the segmented flight trajectory, but does not discuss a specific calculation of risk per segment.) However, this is known in the art, as is taught by Sachs: (Sachs: "Exemplary section 840 illustrates a map based upon a flight path provided by an operator (or otherwise previously stored, such as a shared, common, or test flight path which may be stored in advance and available for use by the operator). The flight path is shown broken up into several legs or segments of the flight, such breakdown typically being provided as part of the flight plan. Each segment may have different relevant information, such as a different range of altitude, and may pass over differently zoned or populated areas, so as to require the calculation of a different risk value for each respective section." (underlining added) [0087]; also see Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the calculation of risk per flight segment, as is shown in Sachs, to the trajectory planning system of Sellmann. The motivation would be to determine which were the most dangerous parts of the flight path.
As for claim 20, Sellmann teaches computer-implemented digital flight management method comprising: (Sellmann: See [0046] for the computer implementation. Figs. 6A, 6B show a sample embodiment method ) digitally accessing: flight request data related to a flight plan (Sellmann: this would be the initial flight plan, which is already known. "An airline in flight normally has a planned, scheduled flight route, taking off from a first, known airport, traveling mostly or entirely via a pre-planned route (possibly with some route variations necessitated by unexpected weather, or other aviation emergencies of nearby aircraft, and then landing at a second, designated airport."[0058]) ;
aircraft parameter data related to an aircraft associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "As is known in the art, aircraft 100 are deployed with a wide variety of sensors 346 to determine all of: aircraft integrity; aircraft systems operational status; flight status (speed, altitude, direction, etc.); and exterior environmental status (wind speed, temperatures, humidity, etc.)" [0070]);
a flight risk data source (Sellmann: Under a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation this can be the Airport reachability calculations and safe landing probabilities 392 generated using the simulations. (See [0039] and [0103]));
and geographical data corresponding to a geographical area associated with said flight plan (Sellmann: "The status information may include, for example and without limitation: the aircraft's geolocation and nose orientation; the current operating conditions of the aircraft itself; and the current weather and other environmental conditions, such as wind speed and precipitation."[0097]);
calculating a predicted flight path based at least in part on said flight request data and said geographical data, wherein said predicted flight path comprises multiple consecutive predicted flight path segments automatically calculated (Sellmann: "The assessment is done in part by simulating multiple possible landing options, which may include choices among several local airports, and choices of different flight paths to any one local airport."[0071]; flight path models are recovered from memory, [0102]; that the flight path model is segmented to form a curve "as necessary to delineate a pass to a particular airport" [0103]);
digitally comparing, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, each of said predicted flight [paths] with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight [paths] (Sellmann: This is done by comparing the simulated (multi-segmented) trajectories to determine the risks for each. "In step 400.4, the LOAD 305 creates multiple simulation scenarios for potential landings." [0105]; see [0106]-[0114]);
and via a user interface, distinctly graphically map said predicted flight [paths] in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellmann: "Step 3: In step 390.3, and in one embodiment of the present system and method, the LDA 300 may present low altitude diversion recommendations 350 to the pilot or co-pilot via the cockpit display/audio system(s) 260." [0074]; " A set of simulation scenarios 506.1 illustrates the probability plots 590 for several different airports, assuming the pilot initiates activity at the thirty (30) second mark after the event. The consequences of further delays, which generally entail reduced probabilities as are rapidly apparent from the chart updated on a pilot display."[0130])
Sellmann does not specifically teach [to] assess a respective flight risk associated with each of said predicted flight path segments or [to] distinctly graphically map said predicted flight path segments in accordance with said respective flight risk. (Sellman discusses the addition of risk through delay being added to each flight scenario at particular times during a candidate trajectory (see [0116]) which would conceivably map onto the segmented flight trajectory, but does not discuss a specific calculation of risk per segment.) However, this is known in the art, as is taught by Sachs: (Sachs: "Exemplary section 840 illustrates a map based upon a flight path provided by an operator (or otherwise previously stored, such as a shared, common, or test flight path which may be stored in advance and available for use by the operator). The flight path is shown broken up into several legs or segments of the flight, such breakdown typically being provided as part of the flight plan. Each segment may have different relevant information, such as a different range of altitude, and may pass over differently zoned or populated areas, so as to require the calculation of a different risk value for each respective section." (underlining added) [0087]; also see Fig. 8.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to add the calculation of risk per flight segment, as is shown in Sachs, to the trajectory planning system of Sellmann. The motivation would be to determine which were the most dangerous parts of the flight path.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 1, and in light of “Analyzing threats to 3D path lines and corridors using ArcGIS 3D Analyst extension” (attached as NPL-ArcGis.pdf, henceforth “ArcGis”.)
As for claim 2, neither Sellmann nor Sachs teach wherein each of said predicted flight path segments is distinctly graphically mapped in accordance with said respective flight risk via at least one of a corresponding colour scheme, insignia or indicium. However, this is known in the art, as is shown by ArcGis: (ArcGis: see image on page 3, where the colors of the aircraft trajectory change in accordance with the level of risk.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a risk color-coding as shown by ArcGis in the system of Sellmann, as modified by Sachs. The motivation would be to provide a graphic mechanism by which risk could be displayed.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. 6,940,426 (Vaida).
As for claim 4, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said digital processing environment is operable in-flight to digitally compare said predicted flight path with said flight risk data from said flight risk data source in real-time to update said flight risk associated with said predicted flight path segments in-flight (Sellmann: updating in real time to provide updated scenarios: [0122]; Sachs: )
and graphically map via said user interface said predicted flight path segments in accordance with each said updated flight risk (Sachs: Claim 12: "...displaying, via the user interface, an updated risk assessment indicator based on the received modification information." Also see Fig. 8.)
Neither Sellmann nor Sachs specifically mention wherein said digital processing environment is operable to execute said computer-executable instructions prior to takeoff of said aircraft, however, a check of possible weather problems/other risk factors (and updating of plans when necessary) before take-off is known in the art (see Vaida, Col. 4, line 62-Col 5, line 18)), is standard in flight preparation, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation would be to make sure that no last minute changes would need to be made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0139233 (Schwindt et al., hence (Schwindt).
As for claim 6, neither Sellmann nor Sachs specifically mention wherein said flight risk data source comprises one or more of a flight alert application programming interface (API) or notice to airman (NOTAM) alert service. However, Schwindt teaches wherein said flight risk data source comprises one or more of a flight alert application programming interface (API) or notice to airman (NOTAM) alert service. (Schwindt: Fig. 3, data received from NOTAM and flight plan updated (116)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to have included the NOTAM alert service of Schwindt in the flight management system of Sellmann with a reasonable expectation of success, since this is just providing a mechanism by which risk reports are received. The motivation would be to include available sources of warnings that might affect the flight path.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 1, and in light of US Pub. 2021/0005091 (Raabe et al., hence Raabe)
As for claim 7, neither Sellmann nor Sachs teaches wherein said aircraft comprises a plurality of respective aircrafts, and wherein said digital processing environment is operable to execute said network-executable instructions and said digital instructions for each of said plurality of respective aircrafts. However, Raabe teaches wherein said aircraft comprises a plurality of respective aircrafts, and wherein said digital processing environment is operable to execute said network-executable instructions and said digital instructions for each of said plurality of respective aircrafts. (Raabe: multiple UAVs are being handled within the system: "There is provided a flight management system for managing a flight plan of flying objects that fly among ports." (abstract))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to expand a risk assessment system for one aircraft, such as described in Sellmann or in Sachs, to cover the case where multiple aircraft are being covered, as is shown in Raabe. The motivation would be to cover more than one aircraft.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of "A walkthrough of basic flight planning with LittleNavMap" (attached in parent application as NPL-Beckett.pdf, henceforth “Beckett”).
As for claim 8, neither Sellmann nor Sachs specifically teach wherein said user interface is user- configurable to display designated graphical layers associated with one or more of said predicted flight path, said flight risk data, said geographical data, or said aircraft parameter data. However, Beckett teaches wherein said user interface is user- configurable to display designated graphical layers associated with one or more of said predicted flight path, said flight risk data, said geographical data, or said aircraft parameter data. (Beckett: Customizable view of flight display is known in the art, see the row of blocks at the top of Little NavMap. Little NavMap is a user interface used in conjunction with flight simulators, but the user interface is solving the same problems as found in flight plan displays for actual aircraft.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to incorporate the user interface system LittleNavMap into the user interface system of Sellmann, as modified by Sachs. The motivation would be to provide different levels of data to the user.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0136027 (Mere).
As for claim 9, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said computer-executable instructions further comprise instructions to access aircraft location [data] and calculate updated flight path segments based at least in part on said aircraft position data, said geographical data, and said flight plan. (Sellmann: due to an emergency, the system has used simulations depending on aircraft location, heading, velocity, etc. to determine the best airport in the surrounding area to fly to, which provide an updated flight path. Accessing aircraft position data, geographic data, etc. see [0097] The generation of updated path segments, see Fig. 11 for an example).
Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach [to] calculate a flight deviation value based on said aircraft location data and said predicted flight path segments (Sellmann:the geographic difference between the emergency landing airport and the originally planned airport could be considered the flight deviation value, but Sellmann does not actually calculate such a value.) However, the calculation of such a flight deviation value is taught by Mere: (Mere: [0034]-[0035] mention the use of software to implement each function; [0061] mentions “a navigation function 3 which makes it possible to calculate the position of the aircraft”, and [0062] mentions “a function 5 for calculation of deviations between the position of the aircraft and a flight path to be followed. The position of the aircraft is received by the navigation function 3, and is compared to a position conforming to the flight plan provided by the flight path management function 2 in order to provide a guidance function 4 with a flight path correction to be applied to the aircraft…” which covers the rest of the elements of the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the system of Mere in the system of Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, with a reasonable expectation of success since implementing Mere’s system is simply adding a set of computer program modules (Mere: See [0034]-[0035]).
As for claim 10, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs and by Mere, teaches wherein said instructions further comprise instructions to: digitally compare, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, said updated flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a real-time flight risk associated with said updated flight path segments; (Sachs: "In some embodiments, the flight planning software 130 or another component related to a UTM functionality, may implement or execute a path planning algorithm that may take into account various factors in a risk assessment, as well as other data sources, to propose a safe route that avoids (or reduces risk to) ground-based and air-based risk areas. This proposal may take the form, for example, of a notification or suggestion presented to an operator and/or regulatory agency, a comprehensive updated flight plan, or a pre-flight recommendation, among other things."[0031]; the flight path being divided up into segments, see Fig. 8.)
and display via said user interface said updated flight path in accordance with said real-time flight risk. (Sachs: Fig. 8)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Sellmann in light of Sachs as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Section 3: Overdue Aircraft” (attached as NPL-FAA-overdue.pdf, henceforth “FAA”.)
As for claim 11, neither Sellmann nor Sachs specifically teach wherein said digital instructions further comprise instructions to provide an alert related to an overdue aircraft based at least in part on said flight plan. However, overdue aircraft resulting in an alert is known in the art, see FAA: “Section 3. Overdue Aircraft”.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, and in light of Sachs as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Beckett.
As for claim 14, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach wherein said airspace volume comprises a take-off column associated with an area around a take-off location, a landing column associated with an area around a planned landing location, and a flight path corridor defined around a planned flight altitude along said flight plan. However, this is obvious and known in the art because a flight path is at a certain altitude and requires a trajectory to go from the take-off point up to the flight altitude, and equivalently from the flight altitude down to the landing point. (Beckett: See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett. Also note that flight path corridors are defined in the art and are in fact regularly used in flight planning.)
As for claim 15, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said take-off column and said landing column are substantially vertically oriented airspace columns, whereas said flight path corridor is a substantially horizontally oriented airspace corridor. (Beckett: See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 16, and in light of ArcGis.
As for claim 17, neither Sellmann nor Sachs teach wherein each of said predicted flight path segments is distinctly graphically mapped in accordance with said respective flight risk via at least one of a corresponding colour scheme, insignia or indicium. However, this is known in the art, as is shown by ArcGis: (ArcGis: see image on page 3, where the colors of the aircraft trajectory change in accordance with the level of risk.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a risk color-coding as shown by ArcGis in the system of Sellmann, as modified by Sachs. The motivation would be to provide a graphic mechanism by which risk could be displayed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann in light of Sachs, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mere.
As for claim 18, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said computer-executable instructions further comprise instructions to access aircraft location [data], calculate updated flight path segments based at least in part on said aircraft position data, said geographical data, and said flight plan. (Sellmann: due to an emergency, the system has used simulations depending on aircraft location, heading, velocity, etc. to determine the best airport in the surrounding area to fly to, which provide an updated flight path. Accessing aircraft position data, geographic data, etc. see [0097] The generation of updated path segments, see Fig. 11 for an example)
[to] digitally compare, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, said updated flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a real-time flight risk associated with said updated flight path segments; (Sachs: "In some embodiments, the flight planning software 130 or another component related to a UTM functionality, may implement or execute a path planning algorithm that may take into account various factors in a risk assessment, as well as other data sources, to propose a safe route that avoids ( or reduces risk to) ground-based and air-based risk areas. This proposal may take the form, for example, of a notification or suggestion presented to an operator and/or regulatory agency, a comprehensive updated flight plan, or a pre-flight recommendation, among other things." (underlining added) [0031]. That the flight path is divided up into segments, see [0087])
and display via said user interface said updated flight path in accordance with said real-time flight risk. (Sachs: Fig. 8 shows a risk analysis of a typical flight plan, divided into segments.)
Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach [to] calculate a flight deviation value based on said aircraft location data and said predicted flight path segments.
However, Mere teaches [to] calculate a flight deviation value based on said aircraft location data and said predicted flight path segments (Mere: [0034]-[0035] mention the use of software to implement each function; [0061] mentions “a navigation function 3 which makes it possible to calculate the position of the aircraft”, and [0062] mentions “a function 5 for calculation of deviations between the position of the aircraft and a flight path to be followed. The position of the aircraft is received by the navigation function 3, and is compared to a position conforming to the flight plan provided by the flight path management function 2 in order to provide a guidance function 4 with a flight path correction to be applied to the aircraft…” which covers the rest of the elements of the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the system of Mere in the system of Raabe, with a reasonable expectation of success since implementing Mere’s system is simply adding a set of computer program modules (See [0034]-[0035]). The motivation would be to include a deviation to the flight plan to avoid risk.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann in light of Sachs in as applied to claim 16 above, and further in light of Beckett.
As for claim 19, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said predicted flight path segments comprises an airspace volume, and wherein said predicted flight path segments are compared with said flight risk data associated with locations defined within said airspace volume. (Sachs: Fig. 5A shows the path of the airplane through a set of airspace cubes (volume) while Figs. 6 and 7 show the process by which risk is calculated.))
Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach wherein said airspace volume comprises a take-off column associated with an area around a take-off location, a landing column associated with an area around a planned landing location, and a flight path corridor defined around a planned flight altitude along said flight plan. However, this is obvious and known in the art because a flight path is at a certain altitude and requires a trajectory to go from the take-off point up to the flight altitude, and equivalently from the flight altitude down to the landing point. (Beckett: See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett. Also note that flight path corridors are defined in the art and are in fact regularly used in flight planning.)
Neither does Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teach specifically wherein said take-off column and said landing column are substantially vertically oriented airspace columns, whereas said flight path corridor is a substantially horizontally oriented airspace corridor. However, this is also known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (Beckett: See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the flight profile as outlined in Beckett as a flight bath for the system of Sellmann, as modified. The motivation would be to gain/lose altitude as quickly as possible near departure and arrival locations so as to avoid other air traffic.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann, in light of Sachs as applied to claim 20, and in light of ArcGis.
As for claim 21, neither Sellmann nor Sachs teach wherein each of said predicted flight path segments is distinctly graphically mapped in accordance with said respective flight risk via at least one of a corresponding colour scheme, insignia or indicium. However, this is known in the art, as is shown by ArcGis: (ArcGis: see image on page 3, where the colors of the aircraft trajectory change in accordance with the level of risk.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use a risk color-coding as shown by ArcGis in the system of Sellmann, as modified by Sachs. The motivation would be to provide a graphic mechanism by which risk could be displayed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann in light of Sachs, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Mere.
As for claim 22, Sellmann, modified by Sachs, teaches wherein the method further comprises accessing aircraft location [data], calculating updated flight path segments based at least in part on said aircraft position data, said geographical data, and said flight plan (Sellmann: due to an emergency, the system has used simulations depending on aircraft location, heading, velocity, etc. to determine the best airport in the surrounding area to fly to, which provide an updated flight path. Accessing aircraft position data, geographic data, etc. see [0097] The generation of updated path segments, see Fig. 11 for an example);
digitally comparing, based at least in part on said aircraft parameter data, said updated flight path segments with flight risk data from said flight risk data source to assess a real-time flight risk associated with said updated flight path segments; (Sachs: "In some embodiments, the flight planning software 130 or another component related to a UTM functionality, may implement or execute a path planning algorithm that may take into account various factors in a risk assessment, as well as other data sources, to propose a safe route that avoids (or reduces risk to) ground-based and air-based risk areas. This proposal may take the form, for example, of a notification or suggestion presented to an operator and/or regulatory agency, a comprehensive updated flight plan, or a pre-flight recommendation, among other things." (underlining added) [0031]. That the flight path is divided up into segments, see [0087])
and displaying via said user interface said updated flight path in accordance with said real-time flight risk. (Sachs: Fig. 8 shows a risk analysis of a typical flight plan, divided into segments.)
Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach calculating a flight deviation value based on said aircraft location data and said predicted flight path segments.
However, Mere teaches calculating a flight deviation value based on said aircraft location data and said predicted flight path segments. (Mere: [0034]-[0035] mention the use of software to implement each function; [0061] mentions “a navigation function 3 which makes it possible to calculate the position of the aircraft”, and [0062] mentions “a function 5 for calculation of deviations between the position of the aircraft and a flight path to be followed. The position of the aircraft is received by the navigation function 3, and is compared to a position conforming to the flight plan provided by the flight path management function 2 in order to provide a guidance function 4 with a flight path correction to be applied to the aircraft…” which covers the rest of the elements of the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to combine together the system of Mere in the system of Raabe, with a reasonable expectation of success since implementing Mere’s system is simply adding a set of computer program modules (See [0034]-[0035]). The motivation would be to include a deviation to the flight plan to avoid risk.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sellmann in light of Sachs in as applied to claim 20 above, and further in light of Beckett.
As for claim 23, Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teaches wherein said predicted flight path segments comprises respective airspace volumes, and wherein said predicted flight path segments are compared with said flight risk data associated with locations defined within said respective airspace volumes. (Sachs: Fig. 5A shows the path of the airplane through a set of airspace cubes (volume) while Figs. 6 and 7 show the process by which risk is calculated.))
Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, does not specifically teach wherein said airspace volumes comprises a take-off column associated with an area around a take-off location, a landing column associated with an area around a planned landing location, and a flight path corridor defined around a planned flight altitude along said flight plan. However, this is obvious and known in the art because a flight path is at a certain altitude and requires a trajectory to go from the take-off point up to the flight altitude, and equivalently from the flight altitude down to the landing point. (See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett. Also note that flight path corridors are defined in the art and are in fact regularly used in flight planning.)
Neither does Sellmann, as modified by Sachs, teach specifically wherein said take-off column and said landing column are substantially vertically oriented airspace columns, whereas said flight path corridor is a substantially horizontally oriented airspace corridor. However, this is also known in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (See the lower cross-section of the flight plan in the screen capture of Beckett.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to use the flight profile as outlined in Beckett as a flight bath for the system of Sellmann, as modified. The motivation would be to gain/lose altitude as quickly as possible near departure and arrival locations so as to avoid other air traffic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANYA CHRISTINE SIENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3912. 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.
/TANYA C SIENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664