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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to claims have overcome the previous 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/09/2026.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mere (US 20170132942 A1) in view of Bitar et al. (US 20070276553 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Mere teaches an apparatus comprising:
memory circuitry (Fig. 1, database 2);
at least one processor circuitry to be programmed by instructions (Fig. 1, processing unit 6) to:
process an input to determine a containment zone with a floor and lateral boundaries for a flight path from a first location to a second location ([0075] and [0127], where a protective envelope is created);
generate a hazard assessment with respect to the containment zone along the flight path ([0126-0128]),
the hazard assessment comprising calculating proximity of the aircraft to terrain and one or more obstacles in the containment zone ([0126-0128] and [0132], where it is determined whether fixed obstacles, i.e. terrain, and/or moving obstacles are colliding with the protection envelope such that they will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling along the path)
and determining a priority assessment of the flight path relative to other flight paths based on at least the proximity ([0139-0140], where paths where obstacles intrude in the protection envelope such that the obstacles will be proximate to the aircraft are assigned a non-validated priority, and are otherwise assigned a validated priority if there is no obstacles that will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling);
process the flight path using the hazard assessment to determine a validation of the flight path ([0129]).
and output a definition of the flight path ([0150]). It is noted that an explicit definition of "flight path definition" is not given, and as such has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include an outputted flight path that is displayed for user guidance. Additionally, as the optimum path is only determined and displayed after a validation by validating means ([0129]), it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that this path being displayed is an indication of the validation of the flight path.
Mere teaches that a containment zone in the form of a protective envelope is determined so that the aircraft remains within this protective envelope. It also teaches assessing the aircraft's paths based on running into an obstacle. It does not teach that this containment zone has a lower altitude limit and later boundaries, and although it assesses the current aerodynamic physics of the aircraft when generating possible paths ([0114]), it does not teach that the processor is configured to generate a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path.
In the same field of navigational control of aircraft, Bitar teaches assessing an aircraft traveling through a zone/region limited by the lateral boundaries in which it can reasonably turn ([0163] and Fig. 9), and limited by a lower altitude limit based on the highest detected obstacle within the zone/region ([0112-0115] and Fig. 4), with the analysis working upwards from this lower limit. It also teaches a process to generate a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, i.e. a system of Newtonian equations, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12, where flight paths are assessed based on a maneuverability assessment through this region).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Mere with these teachings. This which would predictably limit the number of generated paths that need to be tested as paths that are of an altitude that risks collision or are otherwise unable to be maneuvered by the aircraft will no longer be considered as possible viable paths. Just as Mere only validates state paths when they are free of obstructing hazards ([0129]), would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that only state paths that are flyable per the system of equations of Bitar would be validated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine Mere with the maneuverability determination methods of Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that only practicable flight paths are approved and recommended to an operator of an aircraft, thus avoiding unsafe operation caused by dangerous or impractical flight paths being validated.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Mere teaches wherein the validations includes at least one of a validation of a new flight path or a re-validation of an existing flight path ([0152] and [0154], where generated flight paths are validated).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Mere teaches wherein determining the validation includes accepting the flight path or rejecting the flight path ([0154], where the validated flight paths are accepted and retained and unvalidated flight paths are not retained).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Bitar teaches wherein the flight physics model is constructed from at least one of a weighted factor analysis or a trained artificial intelligence model ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12; Figs 7-8, where a weighted cost is calculated for a roll maneuver).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Mere teaches wherein the at least one processor circuitry is to determine a priority assessment for the flight path ([0155] where a cost is assigned to each flight path; [0037] and [0159], where the cost is used to give priorities to the flight paths).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Mere teaches providing the output to a display ([0150]), but does not explicitly teach outputting to a flight management system (FMS).
However, it does teach that the unit is connected to a flight management system ([0095]), and that the outputted optimum path can be used for automatic guidance ([0148]). As the FMS taught by Mere propagates the aircraft forward, and as FMS systems are well known to perform automatic guidance operations, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to output the optimum path to the FMS so that it is capable performing automatic guidance operations.
Regarding claim 8, Mere teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 1, database 2 and at least one processor circuitry configured to at least:
process an input to determine a containment zone with floor and lateral boundaries for a flight path from a first location to a second location ([0075] and [0127], where a protective envelope is created);
generate a hazard assessment with respect to the containment zone along the flight path ([0126-0128]),
the hazard assessment comprising calculating proximity of the aircraft to terrain and one or more obstacles in the containment zone ([0126-0128] and [0132], where it is determined whether fixed obstacles, i.e. terrain, and/or moving obstacles are colliding with the protection envelope such that they will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling along the path)
and determining a priority assessment of the flight path relative to other flight paths based on at least the proximity ([0139-0140], where paths where obstacles intrude in the protection envelope such that the obstacles will be proximate to the aircraft are assigned a non-validated priority, and are otherwise assigned a validated priority if there is no obstacles that will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling);
process the flight path using the hazard assessment to determine a validation of the flight path ([0129]).
and output a definition of the flight path ([0150]). It is noted that an explicit definition of "flight path definition" is not given, and as such has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include an outputted flight path that is displayed for user guidance. Additionally, as the optimum path is only determined and displayed after a validation by validating means ([0129]), it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that this path being displayed is an indication of the validation of the flight path.
Mere does not explicitly teach that said storage medium includes instructions that cause the processor to perform its operations. However, does teach that the operations are performed by a computer in the form of a data processing unit ([0095] and [0136]). It is therefore implicit to the disclosure of Mere that instructions that cause the processor to perform its operations are stored by a storage medium as computer processing units definitionally execute machine instructions in order to perform programmed operations.
Mere teaches that a containment zone in the form of a protective envelope is determined so that the aircraft remains within this protective envelope. It also teaches assessing the aircraft's paths based on running into an obstacle. It does not teach that this containment zone has a lower altitude limit and later boundaries, and although it assesses the current aerodynamic physics of the aircraft when generating possible paths ([0114]), it does not teach that the processor is configured to generate a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path.
In the same field of navigational control of aircraft, Bitar teaches assessing an aircraft traveling through a zone/region limited by the lateral boundaries in which it can reasonably turn ([0163] and Fig. 9), and limited by a lower altitude limit based on the highest detected obstacle within the zone/region ([0112-0115] and Fig. 4), with the analysis working upwards from this lower limit. It also teaches a process to generate a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, i.e. a system of Newtonian equations, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12, where flight paths are assessed based on a maneuverability assessment through this region).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Mere with these teachings. This which would predictably limit the number of generated paths that need to be tested as paths that are of an altitude that risks collision or are otherwise unable to be maneuvered by the aircraft will no longer be considered as possible viable paths. Just as Mere only validates state paths when they are free of obstructing hazards ([0129]), it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that only state paths that are flyable per the system of equations of Bitar would be validated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine Mere with the maneuverability determination methods of Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that only practicable flight paths are approved and recommended to an operator of an aircraft, thus avoiding unsafe operation caused by dangerous or impractical flight paths being validated.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Mere teaches wherein the validations includes at least one of a validation of a new flight path or a re-validation of an existing flight path ([0152] and [0154], where generated flight paths are validated).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Mere teaches wherein determining the validation includes accepting the flight path or rejecting the flight path ([0154], where the validated flight paths are accepted and retained and unvalidated flight paths are not retained).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Bitar teaches wherein the flight physics model is constructed from at least one of a weighted factor analysis or a trained artificial intelligence model ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12; Figs 7-8, where a weighted cost is calculated for a roll maneuver).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Mere teaches wherein the at least one processor circuitry is to determine a priority assessment for the flight path ([0155] where a cost is assigned to each flight path; [0037] and [0159], where the cost is used to give priorities to the flight paths).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Mere teaches providing the output to a display ([0150]), but does not explicitly teach outputting to a flight management system (FMS).
However, it does teach that the unit is connected to a flight management system ([0095]), and that the outputted optimum path can be used for automatic guidance ([0148]). As the FMS taught by Mere propagates the aircraft forward, and as FMS systems are well known to perform automatic guidance operations, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to output the optimum path to the FMS so that it is capable performing automatic guidance operations.
Regarding claim 15, Mere teaches a computer-implemented method of flight path validation, the method being executed by a processor circuit ([0075] and [0127]) and comprising:
processing an input to determine a containment zone with a floor and lateral boundaries for a flight path from a first location to a second location ([0075] and [0127], where a protective envelope is created);
generating a hazard assessment with respect to the containment zone along the flight path ([0126-0128]),
the hazard assessment comprising calculating proximity of the aircraft to terrain and one or more obstacles in the containment zone ([0126-0128] and [0132], where it is determined whether fixed obstacles, i.e. terrain, and/or moving obstacles are colliding with the protection envelope such that they will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling along the path)
and determining a priority assessment of the flight path relative to other flight paths based on at least the proximity ([0139-0140], where paths where obstacles intrude in the protection envelope such that the obstacles will be proximate to the aircraft are assigned a non-validated priority, and are otherwise assigned a validated priority if there is no obstacles that will be proximate to the aircraft when traveling);
processing the flight path using the hazard assessment to determine a validation of the flight path ([0129]).
and outputting a definition of the flight path ([0150]). It is noted that an explicit definition of "flight path definition" is not given, and as such has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation to include an outputted flight path that is displayed for user guidance. Additionally, as the optimum path is only determined and displayed after a validation by validating means ([0129]), it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that this path being displayed is an indication of the validation of the flight path.
Mere does not explicitly teach that the method is performed by executing an instruction using the at least one processor. However, it is implicit to the disclosure of Mere that the processor performs its operations by executing an instruction as computer processing units definitionally execute machine instructions in order to perform programmed operations.
Mere teaches that a containment zone in the form of a protective envelope is determined so that the aircraft remains within this protective envelope. It also teaches assessing the aircraft's paths based on running into an obstacle. It does not teach that this containment zone has a lower altitude limit and later boundaries, and although it assesses the current aerodynamic physics of the aircraft when generating possible paths ([0114]), it does not teach that the method includes generating a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path.
In the same field of navigational control of aircraft, Bitar teaches assessing an aircraft traveling through a zone/region limited by the lateral boundaries in which it can reasonably turn ([0163] and Fig. 9), and limited by a lower altitude limit based on the highest detected obstacle within the zone/region ([0112-0115] and Fig. 4), with the analysis working upwards from this lower limit. It also teaches a process including generating a flyability assessment using a flight physics model, i.e. a system of Newtonian equations, the flight physics model modeling movement of an aircraft through the containment zone along the flight path ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12, where flight paths are assessed based on a maneuverability assessment through this region).
A skilled artisan would have been able to modify Mere with these teachings. This which would predictably limit the number of generated paths that need to be tested as paths that are of an altitude that risks collision or are otherwise unable to be maneuvered by the aircraft will no longer be considered as possible viable paths. Just as Mere only validates state paths when they are free of obstructing hazards ([0129]), would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that only state paths that are flyable per the system of equations of Bitar would be validated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine Mere with the maneuverability determination methods of Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that only practicable flight paths are approved and recommended to an operator of an aircraft, thus avoiding unsafe operation caused by dangerous or impractical flight paths being validated.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Mere teaches wherein determining the validation includes accepting the flight path or rejecting the flight path ([0154], where the validated flight paths are accepted and retained and unvalidated flight paths are not retained).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Bitar teaches wherein the flight physics model is constructed from at least one of a weighted factor analysis or a trained artificial intelligence model ([0105-0108] and Figs. 1, 10, and 12; Figs 7-8, where a weighted cost is calculated for a roll maneuver).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Mere teaches wherein the at least one processor circuitry is to determine a priority assessment for the flight path ([0155] where a cost is assigned to each flight path; [0037] and [0159], where the cost is used to give priorities to the flight paths).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Mere teaches providing the output to a display ([0150]), but does not explicitly teach outputting to a flight management system (FMS).
However, it does teach that the unit is connected to a flight management system ([0095]), and that the outputted optimum path can be used for automatic guidance ([0148]). As the FMS taught by Mere propagates the aircraft forward, and as FMS systems are well known to perform automatic guidance operations, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to output the optimum path to the FMS so that it is capable performing automatic guidance operations.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mere in view of Bitar as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Thomassey (US 20210375147 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Mere teaches wherein generating the hazard assessment includes processing topographic databases to identify hazards within the containment zone along the flight path. ([0050-0051]).
Both Mere ([0050-0051]) and Bitar ([0109]) teach that databases of obstacles are accessed to determine if obstacles are in the flight path. It is not explicitly taught how these databases are constructed, and the prior combination does not teach processing at least one of images or radar data to identify hazards.
The use of a plurality of components for topography and obstacle detection was well known in the art. In the same field of obstacle and hazard avoidance for aircraft and as included by the applicant, Thomassey describes how using images and radar data in such a manner was well known ([0014-0015]), and teaches a system that processes this image and radar data for obstacle, i.e. hazard, detection ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to include the use of images and radar data for obstacle detection based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to supplement the information in the database with more recently generated topographical data, thereby improving the accuracy and estimated dimensions of any hazards.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Mere teaches wherein generating the hazard assessment includes processing topographic databases to identify hazards within the containment zone along the flight path. ([0050-0051]).
Both Mere ([0050-0051]) and Bitar ([0109]) teach that databases of obstacles are accessed to determine if obstacles are in the flight path. It is not explicitly taught how these databases are constructed, and the prior combination does not teach processing at least one of images or radar data to identify hazards.
The use of a plurality of components for topography and obstacle detection was well known in the art. In the same field of obstacle and hazard avoidance for aircraft and as included by the applicant, Thomassey describes how using images and radar data in such a manner was well known ([0014-0015]), and teaches a system that processes this image and radar data for obstacle, i.e. hazard, detection ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to include the use of images and radar data for obstacle detection based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to supplement the information in the database with more recently generated topographical data, thereby improving the accuracy and estimated dimensions of any hazards.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Mere teaches wherein generating the hazard assessment includes processing topographic databases to identify hazards within the containment zone along the flight path. ([0050-0051]).
Both Mere ([0050-0051]) and Bitar ([0109]) teach that databases of obstacles are accessed to determine if obstacles are in the flight path. It is not explicitly taught how these databases are constructed, and the prior combination does not teach processing at least one of images or radar data to identify hazards.
The use of a plurality of components for topography and obstacle detection was well known in the art. In the same field of obstacle and hazard avoidance for aircraft and as included by the applicant, Thomassey describes how using images and radar data in such a manner was well known ([0014-0015]), and teaches a system that processes this image and radar data for obstacle, i.e. hazard, detection ([0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to include the use of images and radar data for obstacle detection based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to supplement the information in the database with more recently generated topographical data, thereby improving the accuracy and estimated dimensions of any hazards.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Mere of the previous combination does not teach the amended limitations now part of the presently filed independent claims. This argument is unpersuasive. As stated in the rejection above, Mere, as part of its analysis of flight paths, compares whether obstacles, including fixed obstacles, i.e. terrain, and moving obstacles, intrude or collide with the protection envelope around a path such that the obstacles will be in proximity to the aircraft when traveling along the path([0126-0128]). Using this comparison, Mere classifies the flight paths with such an intrusion of an obstacle as non-validated paths and flight paths with no such intrusion as validated flight paths, wherein validated flight paths are of a higher priority such that they are subsequently scored and further analyzed as part of the processes of Mere ([0139-0140]).
Although not presently argued, examiner observes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “containment zone” to be of particular importance. As claimed, this containment zone is merely required to be “with a floor and lateral boundaries for a flight path”. This is recognized as a rather broad definition, which includes the protection envelope of Mere that is “relating to the required navigation performance (RNP)” (Mere, [0127]). The claimed containment zone lacks the specifics of the larger containment zone as outlined in applicant’s specification in which an aircraft is intended to remain within ([0049]), but can exceed the limits of ([0051]) and has some maneuverability within ([0060]). Applicant is advised to include such limitations when defining the containment zone as part of any future amendments to the claims so as to restrict its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights