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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the sequence of TMA stages comprises at least: a start stage, a start-to-hold stage, a hold stage, a hold-to-PMS stage, a PMS stage, a PMS-to-goal stage and a goal stage”. Based on the disclosure, the claim should read, “wherein the sequence of TMA stages comprises at least: a start stage, a start-to-hold stage, a hold stage, a hold-to-point-merge-system (PMS) stage, a PMS stage, a PMS-to-goal stage and a goal stage”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the optimal control problem is solved using a discrete-stage MDP framework having discretization of TMA stages”. Based on the claim language, the claim should read, “wherein the optimal control problem is solved using a discrete-stage Markov Decision Process (MDP) framework having discretization of TMA stages”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (EUCASS 2017, “Optimal Scheduling Algorithm in Point Merge System Including Holding Pattern Based on MILP”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for controlling an aircraft within a terminal maneuvering area (TMA) of an airport in a presence of multiple other aircraft (Abstract, Fig 5-8 wherein Aircraft AC1-8 are present), comprising:
determining a state trajectory of the aircraft, the state trajectory indexed on a predetermined sequence of TMA stages of the aircraft approaching a merging point in the TMA based on solving an optimal control problem subject to constraints maintaining a pre-determined separation of the aircraft from another aircraft of the multiple other aircraft in the TMA (Fig 2, section 2.2 and section 3, wherein the route for aircraft is generated based on sequence of stages towards the merge point wherein the route is optimized based on flight constraints while maintaining safe separation from other aircrafts; “Several constraints including the holding entry condition and the separation constraint are introduced in this study”; “If a flight f 0 on route r 0 is prior to a flight f on route r at a point p, then the separation distance between two flights should be maintained”; “The number of flights is set to eight. Separation time for safety between aircraft is determined as 60 seconds, and 30 seconds is added to the separation time as a safety buffer to deal with uncertainty”), such that the state trajectory of the aircraft is a sequence of states of the aircraft, the sequence of states having a one-to-one correspondence with the sequence of TMA stages (Table 1, section 2.2 wherein the trajectory of the aircraft correlates with the stages of the TMA; “There are three main variables deciding the result of scheduling. First, Af,r is a binary variable that denotes whether the flight f uses route r or not. It returns 1 if f utilizes r, otherwise 0. Second, S f, f 0 ,r,r 0 ,p decides the priority at a point p, a common point of routes r and r 0 , when a flight f chooses route r and a flight f 0 chooses route r 0 . If f is prior to f 0 at a point p, then S f, f 0 ,r,r 0 ,p takes value 1, otherwise 0. Third, T f,r,p determines the arrival time of flight f at a point p on route r. These three variables are used to formulate MILP optimization problem. The detailed information about the routes and points are summarized in Table 1”), wherein a state of the aircraft includes a time state variable indicative of a time remaining for reaching the merging point (Fig 3-8, section 2.2, section 3 wherein ETA for the merge point is part of the state information during trajectory generation; “Constraint 4 - Transit Time … This constraint is needed to define the transit time between two points”; “Note that there are three types of delay as shown in Fig. 2: i) ∆Tinitial, delay before entering PMS via speed control, ii) ∆Tleg, the time spent on the leg, and iii) ∆Tholding, discrete time delay in holding pattern. These delays are used as control variables to schedule the flights”), wherein each of the predetermined sequence of TMA stages are associated with an action space permitted for the corresponding TMA stage (section 1, 2.2, 3 wherein during each stage of the TMA, the aircraft is permitted to operate within the defined operation constraints; “There are two main elements composing a PMS: the sequencing leg and the merge point. Once an aircraft enters the PMS, the aircraft flies along the prescribed sequencing leg until the air traffic controller provides an instruction for the aircraft to descend to the merge point”); and causing controlling of the aircraft for each of the predetermined sequence of TMA stages based on the determined state trajectory (Abstract, wherein aircrafts are controlled by traffic controllers based on state trajectory; “The proposed optimal scheduling algorithm is expected to assist human traffic controllers and improve the capacity of terminal maneuvering areas”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches wherein the causing of the controlling of the aircraft comprises: transmitting one or more control commands to the aircraft for the controlling the aircraft (Section 1 wherein “Once an aircraft enters the PMS, the aircraft flies along the prescribed sequencing leg until the air traffic controller provides an instruction for the aircraft to descend to the merge point”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches wherein the causing of the controlling of the aircraft comprises: transmitting one or more control commands to an air traffic controller for controlling the aircraft (Abstract wherein the algorithm assist the traffic controllers by providing appropriate information/instructions; “The proposed optimal scheduling algorithm is expected to assist human traffic controllers and improve the capacity of terminal maneuvering areas”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EUCASS 2017, “Optimal Scheduling Algorithm in Point Merge System Including Holding Pattern Based on MILP”) in view of Hong (IEEE 2017, “Dynamic Robust Sequencing and Scheduling Under Uncertainty for the Point Merge System in Terminal Airspace”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the sequence of TMA stages comprises various stages including start, PMS, hold and goal stage (Fig 2). However, Lee fails to teach the stages comprise at least: a start stage, a start-to-hold stage, a hold stage, a hold-to-PMS stage, a PMS stage, a PMS-to-goal stage and a goal stage.
Hong teaches the stages comprise at least: a start stage (Fig 1, aircraft state before entering holding stack), a start-to-hold stage (Fig 1, aircraft travelling to holding stack), a hold stage (Fig 1, aircraft at holding stack), a hold-to-PMS stage (Fig 1, aircraft travelling from holding stack to PMS stage), a PMS stage (Fig 1, aircraft state at PMS stage), a PMS-to-goal stage (Fig 1, aircraft travelling from PMS to merge point) and a goal stage (Fig 1, aircraft state at merge point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee’s teachings of having the sequence of TMA stages comprising various stages to incorporate Hong’s teachings of having the prescribed stages in order tailor the flight trajectory according to the flight constraints.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EUCASS 2017, “Optimal Scheduling Algorithm in Point Merge System Including Holding Pattern Based on MILP”) in view of Costa (US 20190005828 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Lee fails to teach the optimal control problem is solved using dynamic programming.
Costa teaches the optimal control problem is solved using dynamic programming (para 0015 wherein “The goal is to find a policy π(s) that determines which action to select from a state based on the past history of states and actions. An optimal policy is the one that maximizes the expected utility, where the utility of a policy can be evaluated using Dynamic Programming (DP)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee’s teachings of solving an optimal control problem to incorporate Costa’s teachings of the optimal control problem is solved using dynamic programming. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods of using dynamic programming to yield predictable results of generating optimal solutions.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EUCASS 2017, “Optimal Scheduling Algorithm in Point Merge System Including Holding Pattern Based on MILP”) in view of Lim (US 20250130764 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the causing of the controlling of the aircraft (Abstract, wherein aircrafts are controlled by traffic controllers based on state trajectory. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach transmitting one or more control commands to a display interface accessed by a pilot for the controlling of the aircraft.
Lim teaches transmitting one or more control commands to a display interface accessed by a pilot for the controlling of the aircraft (para 0058-0059, 0146 wherein commands are sent to the HMI of pilot for controlling aircraft; “That is, at the air traffic control tower 300, the control manager may check the status information of the aircraft 200 and then output a command by voice, and the air traffic control tower 300 may be configured to transmit the voice command inputted by the control manager to the remote pilot station 100. [0059] In response to the voice command being received from the air traffic control tower 300, the remote pilot station 100 may be configured to generate a command keyword based on the voice command and to display the command keyword on a screen so that a remote pilot may check it”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee’s teachings of controlling of the aircraft to incorporate Lim’s teachings of transmitting one or more control commands to a display interface accessed by a pilot for the controlling of the aircraft. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of controlling aircraft.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a method for controlling an aircraft within a terminal maneuvering area (TMA) of an airport in a presence of multiple other aircraft (Abstract, Fig 5-8 wherein Aircraft AC1-8 are present), comprising:
solve an optimal control problem subject to constraints maintaining a pre-determined separation of the aircraft from the multiple other aircraft in the TMA to determine a state trajectory of an aircraft indexed on a predetermined sequence of TMA stages of the aircraft approaching a merging point in the TMA (Fig 2, section 2.2 and section 3, wherein the route for aircraft is generated based on sequence of stages towards the merge point wherein the route is optimized based on flight constraints while maintaining safe separation from other aircrafts; “Several constraints including the holding entry condition and the separation constraint are introduced in this study”; “If a flight f 0 on route r 0 is prior to a flight f on route r at a point p, then the separation distance between two flights should be maintained”; “The number of flights is set to eight. Separation time for safety between aircraft is determined as 60 seconds, and 30 seconds is added to the separation time as a safety buffer to deal with uncertainty”), such that the state trajectory of the aircraft is a sequence of states having a one-to-one correspondence with the sequence of TMA stages (Table 1, section 2.2 wherein the trajectory of the aircraft correlates with the stages of the TMA; “There are three main variables deciding the result of scheduling. First, Af,r is a binary variable that denotes whether the flight f uses route r or not. It returns 1 if f utilizes r, otherwise 0. Second, S f, f 0 ,r,r 0 ,p decides the priority at a point p, a common point of routes r and r 0 , when a flight f chooses route r and a flight f 0 chooses route r 0 . If f is prior to f 0 at a point p, then S f, f 0 ,r,r 0 ,p takes value 1, otherwise 0. Third, T f,r,p determines the arrival time of flight f at a point p on route r. These three variables are used to formulate MILP optimization problem. The detailed information about the routes and points are summarized in Table 1”), wherein a state of the aircraft includes a time state variable indicative of a time remaining for reaching the merging point (Fig 3-8, section 2.2, section 3 wherein ETA for the merge point is part of the state information during trajectory generation; “Constraint 4 - Transit Time … This constraint is needed to define the transit time between two points”; “Note that there are three types of delay as shown in Fig. 2: i) ∆Tinitial, delay before entering PMS via speed control, ii) ∆Tleg, the time spent on the leg, and iii) ∆Tholding, discrete time delay in holding pattern. These delays are used as control variables to schedule the flights”), wherein different TMA stages are associated with different action space permitted for a specific TMA stage (section 1, 2.2, 3 wherein during each stage of the TMA, the aircraft is permitted to operate within the defined operation constraints; “There are two main elements composing a PMS: the sequencing leg and the merge point. Once an aircraft enters the PMS, the aircraft flies along the prescribed sequencing leg until the air traffic controller provides an instruction for the aircraft to descend to the merge point”); and control the aircraft for different TMA stages according to the state trajectory (Abstract, wherein aircrafts are controlled by traffic controllers based on state trajectory; “The proposed optimal scheduling algorithm is expected to assist human traffic controllers and improve the capacity of terminal maneuvering areas”).
However, Lee fails to teach a controller for controlling an aircraft, the controller comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to execute the provided tasks.
Lim teaches a controller for controlling an aircraft, the controller comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to execute the provided tasks (Fig 2, 8, para 0050, 0058-0059, 0146 wherein commands are sent for controlling aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lee’s teachings of controlling of the aircraft to incorporate Lim’s teachings of a controller for controlling an aircraft, the controller comprising: a processor; and a memory. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of controlling aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11, 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and pending resolution of any objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657