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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the abstract correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the objection to claims 1-5 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 1-5 and 7 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to claims 1-5 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 9, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claims 1-13 correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns, with the exception of the limitation “said optimized flight profile taking into account a result of the evaluation” of claim 1. With respect to this limitation, “the evaluation” remains unclear, as antecedent basis exists in claim 1 for two evaluations: “evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the initial idle flight path;” and “evaluating an energy delta to join the initial idle flight path;”. Accordingly, as independent claim 1 is rendered indefinite, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 has been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 9-13, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-13 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s arguments that amended claim 1 is directed to improving how a flight management system computes and applies descent strategies. In particular, the Examiner is in agreement that the claim and written description sufficiently describe the claimed improvement (e.g., at least “said optimized flight profile… consisting of, for said working section, either in exclusively applying thrust or of exclusively using air brakes, while maximizing a distance travelled in idle.”, see also [0041], [0058], and [0134]). Therefore, with respect to Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, the abstract idea(s) are integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 13-16, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that Boyer fails to teach or suggest each of the limitations of amended claim 1. The Examiner is in partial agreement with Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to Applicant’s first argument (i), Applicant argues that Boyer fails to teach or suggest that the method operates each time an altitude constrained but no slope constrained point is reached during backward prediction computation and defines that point as an anchor point. As discussed during the 05/12/2026 interview, the Examiner is in agreement that the Boyer reference fails to teach or suggest the “each time” aspect of amended claim 1.
With respect to Applicant’s second argument (ii), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s allegation that the G.P.P. point of Boyer fails to correspond to the anchor point of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments purport that the G.P.P. of Boyer only considers altitude constraints downstream of the G.P.P.; however, this is not the case. Applicant’s arguments fail to address at least Col. 11 lines 18-26 of Boyer, which clearly teach that if an initial G.P.P. fails to comply with an initial altitude constraint, the position of the G.P.P. is modified by replacing it with the missed altitude constraint. In other words, this G.P.P. is an altitude-constrained point which is not slope-constrained.
With respect to Applicant’s third argument (iii), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s arguments fail to consider the teachings of at least Col. 14 lines 21-46 of Boyer. Here, Boyer teaches that modification of the G.P.P. occurs based on altitude constraint analysis between the initial G.P.P. and the new G.P.P. which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint.
With respect to Applicant’s fourth argument (iv), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Boyer fails to teach or suggest the “working-section logic and profile construction” of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments amount to an assertion that the optimization of the IDLE profile of Boyer does not implement the “determining whether, in said working section, there is both at least one decelerated flight segment and at least one constant-speed flight segment;” Applicant does not provide any particular evidence as to why the teachings of Boyer allegedly fail to amount to the claimed limitations. The Examiner respectfully maintains that Boyer teaches the “working-section logic” in at least Col. 14 lines 21-46 and Col. 12 lines 15-44, and notes that while Boyer is concerned with speed constraints, Boyer is also concerned with altitude constraints (see, e.g., Col. 15 lines 1-16).
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Boyer in view of Yochum.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the amendments to the preamble are grammatically incorrect. In particular, the preamble reads in part “…the method comprising each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached, in a course of a backward computation of predictions by a flight management system, steps of the computer-implemented method comprise:” When omitting the conditional statements of “each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached, in a course of a backward computation of predictions by a flight management system,”, this limitation would read “the method comprising… steps of the computer-implemented method comprise:”
In claim 2, “the evaluating an energy delta step consists of determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive.” should be “the evaluating the energy delta step consists of determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive.” Here, the “evaluating an energy delta” step of claim 1 is clearly being referred to (i.e., the limitation is not indefinite, but should be amended for proper antecedent basis)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the energy delta is evaluated based on at least one of: a current altitude of the aircraft, a current airspeed, and aircraft performance parameters stored in a performance database.” However, the written description fails to sufficiently describe that the energy delta is evaluated based on aircraft performance parameters stored in a performance database. While [0010] does disclose a performance database PERF DB 150, it is only generally described as containing :aerodynamic and engine parameters of the aircraft”. This database is not described as being connected with the energy delta evaluation. Therefore, the above-recited features amount to new matter.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data.” However, the written description fails to sufficiently describe that the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data. The terms “iteratively” and “real time” (or derivatives) are not present in the written description, nor is the use of updated aircraft position and sensor data. Therefore, the above-recited features amount to new matter.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data.” However, the written description fails to sufficiently describe that the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data. While [0012] does disclose a location module 170, it is merely generally described as “[making] it possible to achieve optimal location of the aircraft using various sources of radio navigation data, delivered by positioning systems and sensors, such as GPS, GALILEO, VHF radio beacons, and inertial measurement units.” The terms GPS and “inertial measurement unit[s]” are not found elsewhere in the written description, and there is no indication that the location module 170 or the GPS or inertial measurement data is used in the backward computation. Therefore, the above-recited features amount to new matter.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.” The written description does disclose generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including air brake deployment in at least [0142]-[0155]. [0164], [0166], and [0171]. However, the written description fails to sufficiently describe that the optimized flight profile comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including engine thrust control. The written description does generally describe, for example, “decreasing the use of the engines” (see at least [0173]); however, this fails to amount to teaching the generation of control commands for actuators of the aircraft including engine thrust control. The written description appears to be silent regarding actuators used for engine thrust control. Therefore, the above-recited features amount to new matter.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.” The written description does disclose generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including air brake deployment in at least [0142]-[0155]. [0164], [0166], and [0171]. However, the written description fails to sufficiently describe that the optimized flight profile comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including engine thrust control. The written description does generally describe, for example, “decreasing the use of the engines” (see at least [0173]); however, this fails to amount to teaching the generation of control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including engine thrust control. The written description appears to be silent regarding actuators used for engine thrust control. Therefore, the above-recited features amount to new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “said optimized flight profile taking into account a result of the evaluation” However, antecedent basis exists in claim 1 for two evaluations: “evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the initial idle flight path;” and “evaluating an energy delta to join the initial idle flight path;” Therefore, it is unclear which evaluation “the evaluation” is intended to refer to. For the purposes of this examination, “the evaluation” is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as being either of the above-recited evaluations of claim 1.
Claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-20 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the step of constructing a flight profile consisting of exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of a flight path,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 1 for “an initial idle flight path”. It is unclear whether “a flight path” of claim 5 may refer to the initial idle flight path of claim 1, or if “a flight path” of claim 5 is a distinct and separate flight path.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to fully disclose “the energy delta is evaluated based on at least one of: a current altitude of the aircraft, a current airspeed, and aircraft performance parameters stored in a performance database.” The claim is therefore rendered indefinite, because it is unclear how the energy delta is evaluated based on aircraft performance parameters stored in a performance database.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to fully disclose “the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data.” The claim is therefore rendered indefinite, because it is unclear how the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data.
Regarding claim 18, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to fully disclose “the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data.” The claim is therefore rendered indefinite, because it is unclear how at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data are used in the backward computation.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to fully disclose “constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.” The claim is therefore rendered indefinite, because it is unclear how control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control are generated.
Regarding claim 20, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to fully disclose “constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.” The claim is therefore rendered indefinite, because it is unclear how control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control are generated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer et al. (US 11,353886 B2), hereinafter Boyer, in view of Yochum (US 2012/0265374 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boyer teaches a computer-implemented method for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases, the method comprising:
...an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached, in a course of a backward computation of predictions by a flight management system, steps of the computer-implemented method comprise:
Boyer teaches (Col. 11 lines 3-17): "A "backward" profile denotes the construction of a "reverse" (or "backward") descent profile, starting from the destination and returning to the cruising altitude. This profile can serve as reference vertical trajectory on which the airplane will be guided. On this descent profile, the airplane equations are integrated "forward" i.e., starting from the current airplane position and trying to conform as much as possible to the theoretical profile, that constitutes the flight predictions which are displayed in the cockpit to the pilot through altitude, distance to destination, speed, time and fuel consumption values. The construction of a "backward" profile amounts to an iterative method." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 18-26): "The integration of a "backward" profile can be done in different ways generally according to an "FPA" mode or a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode… In a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode, a check is carried out to ensure that all the altitude constraints are MADE (satisfied), and the position of the G.P.P. point is modified by replacing it with the first missed constraint if such exists."
defining said altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point as an anchor point;
Boyer teaches (Col. 11 lines 18-26): "The integration of a "backward" profile can be done in different ways generally according to an "FPA" mode or a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode… In a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode, a check is carried out to ensure that all the altitude constraints are MADE (satisfied), and the position of the G.P.P. point is modified by replacing it with the first missed constraint if such exists." Boyer further teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-25): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in the so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in "OPEN IDLE" mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point." Col. 1 lines 54-63 define a geometrical path point (G.P.P) as the point of the flight plan separating the geometrical descent segment and the IDLE descent segment, wherein the point is generally determined by the first constraining altitude constraint (i.e., having altitude constraints but no slope constraints").
determining an initial idle flight path at idle thrust, between said anchor point and a cruise flight level;
Boyer teaches (Col. 5 lines 21-50): "An avionics sequencer 141 assembles, according to predefined rules, different flight plan segments to construct the trajectory from an initial airplane state or from a predefined strategy linked to the different guidance modes of the aircraft. The avionics sequencer 141 defines the sequence of segments to be used/flown according to a predefined strategy... The segments can be of different types or categories. Four main types of segment (of flight plan) can be mentioned: ... 2) the "OPEN IDLE" segments consisting in fixing a reduced engine thrust..." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 3-17): "A "backward" profile denotes the construction of a "reverse" (or "backward") descent profile, starting from the destination and returning to the cruising altitude." Boyer even further teaches (Col. 11 lines 18-26): "The integration of a "backward" profile can be done in different ways generally according to an "FPA" mode or a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode… In a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode, a check is carried out to ensure that all the altitude constraints are MADE (satisfied), and the position of the G.P.P. point is modified by replacing it with the first missed constraint if such exists." Boyer still further teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-25): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in the so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in "OPEN IDLE" mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point."
evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the initial idle flight path;
Boyer teaches (Col. 11 lines 18-26): "The integration of a "backward" profile can be done in different ways generally according to an "FPA" mode or a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode… In a so-called "OPEN IDLE" mode, a check is carried out to ensure that all the altitude constraints are MADE (satisfied), and the position of the G.P.P. point is modified by replacing it with the first missed constraint if such exists."
if at least one altitude constraint is not met at a waypoint for the initial idle flight path: defining a working section between said anchor point and the waypoint where the altitude constraint is not met,
Boyer teaches (Col. 14 lines 21-46): "In one embodiment, the holding to the altitude constraints is verified in the context of an integration in “OPEN IDLE” mode (verification that all the altitude constraints are satisfied, modification of the so-called G.P.P. point by replacing it with the first constraint missed “backward”, therefore between the preceding G.P.P. and the cruising level, if it exists). This verification of the holding to (satisfaction of) the altitude constraints culminates in a return to the step 410 with a new G.P.P. point as starting point, which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint. The list of the optimized altitudes of passage to the speed constraints can then be deleted and the steps of the method can be reiterated, by restarting from the step 410 with, as initialization point, the new G.P.P."
and determining whether, in said working section, there is both at least one decelerated flight segment and at least one constant-speed flight segment;
Boyer teaches (Col. 14 lines 21-46): "This verification of the holding to (satisfaction of) the altitude constraints culminates in a return to the step 410 with a new G.P.P. point as starting point, which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint. The list of the optimized altitudes of passage to the speed constraints can then be deleted and the steps of the method can be reiterated, by restarting from the step 410 with, as initialization point, the new G.P.P." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 52-59): "In one embodiment, this step 410 comprises one or more steps out of the steps of running through all the points of the flight plan (“waypoints”) further away from the runway than the G.P.P. point (and/or from the current point) in order to find (all) the speed constraints (of descent type) which are both greater than the speed of the current point and which are of any constraint type (i.e. of “AT”, “AT OR ABOVE”, “AT OR BELOW” or possibly “WINDOW” type)." Boyer even further teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-44): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in so-called “OPEN IDLE” mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in “OPEN IDLE” mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point. The initial conditions of the estimation are therefore defined at the current point... A final altitude and speed are therefore estimated... In the step 425, a test is carried out on the duly determined speed constraint. In particular, a determination can be made as to whether the speed constraint is complied with or not, possibly by including a margin ΔV. In one embodiment, if the constraint is of “AT OR ABOVE” type or of “WINDOW” type, and if the estimated speed is less than the minimum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining. If the constraint is of “AT OR BELOW” or “WINDOW” type and if the estimated speed is greater than the maximum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining." The Examiner notes that the estimated speed hf is a constant speed. Thus, in this section, there are both one or more decelerated flight segments (i.e., when the estimated speed is less than the minimum speed of the constraint) and one or more constant-speed flight segments (i.e., the flight segment(s) possess a constant-speed estimated speed).
if there is at least one decelerated flight segment and at least one constant-speed flight segment in said working section: evaluating an energy delta to join the initial idle flight path;
Boyer teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-44): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in so-called “OPEN IDLE” mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in “OPEN IDLE” mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point. The initial conditions of the estimation are therefore defined at the current point... A final altitude and speed are therefore estimated... In the step 425, a test is carried out on the duly determined speed constraint. In particular, a determination can be made as to whether the speed constraint is complied with or not, possibly by including a margin ΔV. In one embodiment, if the constraint is of “AT OR ABOVE” type or of “WINDOW” type, and if the estimated speed is less than the minimum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining. If the constraint is of “AT OR BELOW” or “WINDOW” type and if the estimated speed is greater than the maximum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining." (Col. 12 line 49 - Col. 13 line 4): "In the step 430, the method comprises a step of determining the optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint declared "MISSED", as a function of the estimated speed to be able to hold to the speed constraint. To this end, the speed values are estimated as speed relative to the ground to apply an energy-related reasoning: [see equations below]" The Examiner has interpreted the above-discussed calculations as amounting to evaluating an energy delta to join the idle path.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
104
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, while Boyer does teach constructing an optimized flight profile for said working section between said anchor point and said waypoint where the altitude constraint is not met, said optimized flight profile taking into account a result of the evaluation, and consisting of, for said working section, either in exclusively applying thrust or of exclusively using air brakes, while maximizing a distance travelled in idle, Boyer teaches doing so in an alternative embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine embodiments of Boyer to provide:
and constructing an optimized flight profile for said working section between said anchor point and said waypoint where the altitude constraint is not met,
Boyer teaches (Col. 12 line 49 - Col. 13 line 4): "In the step 430, the method comprises a step of determining the optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint declared "MISSED", as a function of the estimated speed to be able to hold to the speed constraint. To this end, the speed values are estimated as speed relative to the ground to apply an energy-related reasoning... The optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint is given by: [see equations above]" (Col. 15 lines 1-16): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used."
said optimized flight profile taking into account a result of the evaluation
Boyer teaches (Col. 12 line 49 - Col. 13 line 4): "In the step 430, the method comprises a step of determining the optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint declared "MISSED", as a function of the estimated speed to be able to hold to the speed constraint. To this end, the speed values are estimated as speed relative to the ground to apply an energy-related reasoning... The optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint is given by: [see equations above]" Boyer further teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-16): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used."
and consisting of, for said working section, either in exclusively applying thrust or of exclusively using air brakes,
Boyer teaches (Col. 12 line 49 - Col. 13 line 4): "In the step 430, the method comprises a step of determining the optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint declared "MISSED", as a function of the estimated speed to be able to hold to the speed constraint. To this end, the speed values are estimated as speed relative to the ground to apply an energy-related reasoning... The optimized altitude of passage to the speed constraint is given by: [see equations above]" Boyer further teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-16): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used."
while maximizing a distance travelled in idle.
Boyer teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-16): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used." The Examiner has interpreted the optimized flight profile as maximizing the distance travelled in idle, as the airbrakes may be utilized to retain the IDLE thrust (i.e., maximizing time/distance spent in idle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Boyer to provide constructing an optimized flight profile taking into account the evaluation, the optimized flight profile consisting, for said section, either in exclusively applying thrust or in exclusively using air brakes, while maximizing the distance travelled in idle. Boyer teaches that the variant embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16 (among other variant embodiments) may be implemented to improve the understanding of the crew (see at least Col. 14 lines 47-55). In the case of the embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16, Boyer teaches that taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft allows for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient. In the same embodiment, Boyer describes the additional benefit of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes by graphically highlighting on a screen one or more flight segments of concern and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used.
However, while Boyer does teach the computer-implemented method, Boyer does not outright teach that the method is implemented each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached. Yochum teaches an aircraft vertical trajectory optimization method, comprising:
each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached…
Yochum teaches ([0040]): "The most cost effective mode of descent occurs with the engines at idle speed, so that the aircraft glides to the ground along a trajectory depicted by the dashed line in FIG. 2. The idle throttle descent trajectory, however, typically cannot be used entirely because one or more of the waypoints in the descent phase has an altitude constraint that is violated by that descent trajectory. For example, the marked waypoint has a constraint that the aircraft altitude be within a given range denoted by the horizontal dotted lines. If the idle throttle descent trajectory was followed, the aircraft will be above the upper altitude limit at this waypoint. Therefore, in order use an idle throttle rate of descent for optimum economy and comply with the waypoint altitude constraint, the aircraft has to begin the descent earlier in the flight route at point B." Yochum further teaches ([0041]): "Nevertheless, the initial iterations of steps 132, 134, 142, 150, and 152-156 the trajectory computation process for the descent phase utilize the idle throttle descent trajectory (the dashed line) obtained from the aircraft performance characteristics database until the waypoint is reached. At each trajectory distance point iteration, the altitude derived from the idle throttle descent trajectory is checked at step 154 to determine whether an altitude constraint has been violated. If a present violation is not found and if no previous violations occurred during the descent phase, the trajectory computation advances from step 154 through step 158 back to step 132 where the aircraft state for the next incremental distance point along the flight route is derived."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer to incorporate the teachings of Yochum to provide that the method is implemented each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached. Boyer and Yochum are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft descent/approach with altitude constraints. In particular, both Boyer and Yochum are concerned with determining whether altitude constraints are met for a descent flight plan. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Yochum, as performing the method for each time an altitude-constrained but no slope-constrained point is reached beneficially allows for determining whether an altitude constraint has been violated for incremental distance points along the flight path, as recognized by Yochum (see at least [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
the step of determining, in said working section, the decelerated flight segments and the constant-speed flight segments comprises a step of constructing a geometric flight profile if there is not, in said working section, both at least one decelerated flight segment and one constant-speed flight segment.
Boyer teaches (Col. 14 lines 21-46): "This verification of the holding to (satisfaction of) the altitude constraints culminates in a return to the step 410 with a new G.P.P. point as starting point, which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint. The list of the optimized altitudes of passage to the speed constraints can then be deleted and the steps of the method can be reiterated, by restarting from the step 410 with, as initialization point, the new G.P.P." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 52-59): "In one embodiment, this step 410 comprises one or more steps out of the steps of running through all the points of the flight plan (“waypoints”) further away from the runway than the G.P.P. point (and/or from the current point) in order to find (all) the speed constraints (of descent type) which are both greater than the speed of the current point and which are of any constraint type (i.e. of “AT”, “AT OR ABOVE”, “AT OR BELOW” or possibly “WINDOW” type)." Boyer even further teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-48): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in so-called “OPEN IDLE” mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in “OPEN IDLE” mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point. The initial conditions of the estimation are therefore defined at the current point... A final altitude and speed are therefore estimated... In the step 425, a test is carried out on the duly determined speed constraint. In particular, a determination can be made as to whether the speed constraint is complied with or not, possibly by including a margin ΔV. In one embodiment, if the constraint is of “AT OR ABOVE” type or of “WINDOW” type, and if the estimated speed is less than the minimum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining. If the constraint is of “AT OR BELOW” or “WINDOW” type and if the estimated speed is greater than the maximum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining... In the absence of the preceding situations, the constraint is declared "MADE" and non-constraining. In this case ,the method continues iteratively with a return to the step 410, the intermediate constraint becoming the initial point."
Regarding claim 7, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
a step of determining whether a speed of the aircraft is being managed in a selected mode and if so solely maintaining construction of a geometric flight profile.
Boyer teaches (Col. 11 lines 36-47): " The speed and altitude profiles are determined in “backward” mode (i.e. by iterative computation from downstream to upstream, from the point of arrival 510 to the point of departure), to the point called DECEL point (deceleration to the final approach speed), by using the default approach strategy in the flight management system FMS or the strategy chosen by the pilot. Once this information is confirmed, the descent profile of the aircraft is “integrated” (i.e. assimilated, accepted, revised) until the characteristic flight plan point called the Geometrical Path Point (GPP) is rejoined, this point of the flight plan separating the so-called geometrical descent from the so-called IDLE descent."
Regarding claim 8, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, while Boyer does teach a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, an obtained path with an optimized flight profile, Boyer does so in an alternative embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine embodiments of Boyer to provide:
a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, an obtained path with an optimized flight profile.
Boyer teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-16): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Boyer to provide a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, an obtained path with an optimized flight profile. Boyer teaches that the variant embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16 (among other variant embodiments) may be implemented to improve the understanding of the crew (see at least Col. 14 lines 47-55). In the case of the embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16, Boyer teaches that taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft allows for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient. In the same embodiment, Boyer describes the additional benefit of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes by graphically highlighting on a screen one or more flight segments of concern and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used.
Regarding claim 9, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
a step of defining a new anchor point.
Boyer teaches (Col. 14 lines 21-46): "In one embodiment, the holding to the altitude constraints is verified in the context of an integration in “OPEN IDLE” mode (verification that all the altitude constraints are satisfied, modification of the so-called G.P.P. point by replacing it with the first constraint missed “backward”, therefore between the preceding G.P.P. and the cruising level, if it exists). This verification of the holding to (satisfaction of) the altitude constraints culminates in a return to the step 410 with a new G.P.P. point as starting point, which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint. The list of the optimized altitudes of passage to the speed constraints can then be deleted and the steps of the method can be reiterated, by restarting from the step 410 with, as initialization point, the new G.P.P."
Regarding claim 10, Boyer and Yochum the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
A non-transitory computer program product comprising code instructions implementing the steps of the method according to claim 1, when said non-transitory computer program product is executed on a computer.
Boyer teaches (Col. 9 lines 31-34): "A computer program product is disclosed, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to perform one or more steps of the method, when said program is run on a computer." Boyer further teaches (Claim 7): "A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, comprising instructions executable by a computer to perform a method for determining a vertical descent profile of an aircraft, the method comprising: ..." See 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
A device for managing energy to be dissipated for the aircraft during descent and approach phases, the device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method of claim 1.
Boyer teaches (Col. 9 lines 31-34): "A computer program product is disclosed, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to perform one or more steps of the method, when said program is run on a computer." See 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. Boyer further teaches:
An aircraft flight management system comprising the device according to claim 11.
Boyer teaches (Col. 9 lines 31-34): "A computer program product is disclosed, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to perform one or more steps of the method, when said program is run on a computer." See 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. Boyer further teaches:
A piece of non-avionics aircraft equipment comprising the device according to claim 11.
Boyer teaches (Col. 9 lines 31-34): "A computer program product is disclosed, said computer program comprising code instructions making it possible to perform one or more steps of the method, when said program is run on a computer." See 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, while Boyer does teach that the optimized flight profile is used by the flight management system to generate control commands or guidance commands for controlling at least one of engine thrust or air-brake deployment of the aircraft, Boyer teaches doing so in an alternative embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine embodiments of Boyer to provide:
the optimized flight profile is used by the flight management system to generate control commands or guidance commands for controlling at least one of engine thrust or air-brake deployment of the aircraft.
Boyer teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-20): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used. According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of communicating, to the automated system, if necessary, a request to extend or retract the airbrakes according to the percentage of airbrakes used."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Boyer to provide that the optimized flight profile is used by the flight management system to generate control commands or guidance commands for controlling at least one of engine thrust or air-brake deployment of the aircraft. Boyer teaches that the variant embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-20 (among other variant embodiments) may be implemented to improve the understanding of the crew (see at least Col. 14 lines 47-55). In the case of the embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16, Boyer teaches that taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft allows for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient. In the same embodiment, Boyer describes the additional benefit of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes by graphically highlighting on a screen one or more flight segments of concern and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used.
Regarding claim 15, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
the energy delta is evaluated based on at least one of: a current altitude of the aircraft, a current airspeed, and aircraft performance parameters stored in a performance database.
Boyer teaches (Col. 12 lines 15-44): "In the step 420, the speed profile and the altitude profile is estimated in so-called “OPEN IDLE” mode. In one embodiment, this step consists in estimating, in “OPEN IDLE” mode, the variation of the speed profile (initially at the so-called G.P.P. point, then at the passage of the speed constraints thereafter) until a speed constraint is selected, by considering i the initial point of the computation and f the speed-constrained final point. The initial conditions of the estimation are therefore defined at the current point... A final altitude and speed are therefore estimated... In the step 425, a test is carried out on the duly determined speed constraint. In particular, a determination can be made as to whether the speed constraint is complied with or not, possibly by including a margin ΔV. In one embodiment, if the constraint is of “AT OR ABOVE” type or of “WINDOW” type, and if the estimated speed is less than the minimum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining. If the constraint is of “AT OR BELOW” or “WINDOW” type and if the estimated speed is greater than the maximum speed of the constraint accompanied by a margin ΔV..., then the constraint is declared “MISSED” and constraining." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 3-17): "A "backward" profile denotes the construction of a "reverse" (or "backward") descent profile, starting from the destination and returning to the cruising altitude. This profile can serve as reference vertical trajectory on which the airplane will be guided. On this descent profile, the airplane equations are integrated "forward" i.e., starting from the current airplane position and trying to conform as much as possible to the theoretical profile, that constitutes the flight predictions which are displayed in the cockpit to the pilot through altitude, distance to destination, speed, time and fuel consumption values. The construction of a "backward" profile amounts to an iterative method."
Regarding claim 17, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
the optimized flight profile is used by a flight management system to generate a vertical guidance trajectory for automatic flight control of the aircraft.
Boyer teaches (Col 5 lines 21-31): "An avionics sequencer 141 assembles, according to pre-defined rules, different flight plan segments to construct the trajectory from an initial airplane state... The avionics sequencer 141 defines the sequence of segments to be used/flown according to a predefined strategy... The set of resulting segments constitutes the reference vertical trajectory to which the aircraft will be locked." Boyer further teaches (Col. 11 lines 3-17): "A "backward" profile denotes the construction of a "reverse" (or "backward") descent profile, starting from the destination and returning to the cruising altitude. This profile can serve as reference vertical trajectory on which the airplane will be guided. On this descent profile, the airplane equations are integrated "forward" i.e., starting from the current airplane position and trying to conform as much as possible to the theoretical profile, that constitutes the flight predictions which are displayed in the cockpit to the pilot through altitude, distance to destination, speed, time and fuel consumption values. The construction of a "backward" profile amounts to an iterative method."
Regarding claim 19, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, while Boyer does teach that constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment, Boyer teaches doing so in an alternative embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine embodiments of Boyer to provide:
constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.
Boyer teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-20): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used. According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of communicating, to the automated system, if necessary, a request to extend or retract the airbrakes according to the percentage of airbrakes used."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Boyer to provide that constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands for actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment. Boyer teaches that the variant embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-20 (among other variant embodiments) may be implemented to improve the understanding of the crew (see at least Col. 14 lines 47-55). In the case of the embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16, Boyer teaches that taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft allows for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient. In the same embodiment, Boyer describes the additional benefit of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes by graphically highlighting on a screen one or more flight segments of concern and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used.
Regarding claim 20, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, while Boyer does teach that constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment, Boyer teaches doing so in an alternative embodiment. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine embodiments of Boyer to provide:
constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment.
Boyer teaches (Col. 15 lines 1-20): " According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft, thus allowing for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient, everything being able to be able to be done from reaching a level, or on a parameterizable slope threshold, for example at one degree less. An implementation can be performed in a discretized manner (e.g. with 50% of airbrakes) or continuously (e.g. through an estimation of the percentage of airbrakes required to retain the IDLE thrust). According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes, for example by graphically highlighting on the screen one or more segments concerned and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used. According to a variant embodiment, the method comprises one or more steps of communicating, to the automated system, if necessary, a request to extend or retract the airbrakes according to the percentage of airbrakes used."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined embodiments of Boyer to provide that constructing the optimized flight profile further comprises generating control commands to control actuators of the aircraft including at least one of engine thrust control and air brake deployment. Boyer teaches that the variant embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-20 (among other variant embodiments) may be implemented to improve the understanding of the crew (see at least Col. 14 lines 47-55). In the case of the embodiment of Col. 15 lines 1-16, Boyer teaches that taking into account the airbrakes of the aircraft allows for a better deceleration of the airplane when the position of an altitude constraint is not sufficient. In the same embodiment, Boyer describes the additional benefit of displaying or presenting to the pilot the hypothesis of use of the airbrakes by graphically highlighting on a screen one or more flight segments of concern and/or by displaying the percentage of airbrakes used.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer and Yochum in view of Criado et al. (US 2015/0307201 A1), hereinafter Criado.
Regarding claim 2, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the evaluating an energy delta step consists of determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive. Criado teaches energy recovery of an aircraft, comprising:
the evaluating an energy delta step consists of determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive.
Criado teaches ([0048]): If the total energy at TOD exceeds the sum of the total energy just before touch down and energy dissipated through the aerodynamic resistance of the aircraft configured for landing, then aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction in energy, and air speed brakes must be used to irreversibly dissipate the excess energy." The Examiner has interpreted the determination of an excess amount of energy as a determination of a positive energy delta.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer and Yochum to incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the evaluating an energy delta step consists of determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive. Boyer, Yochum, and Criado are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft energy management during descent/approach phases. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Criado, as determining whether the energy delta is positive (i.e., whether there is an excess amount of energy) allows for the use of air speed brakes in order to dissipate the excess energy when aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction of energy, as recognized by Criado ([0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Boyer, Yochum, and Criado teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a high-energy profile consisting of using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive. Criado further teaches:
the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a high-energy profile consisting of using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive.
Criado teaches ([0048]): If the total energy at TOD exceeds the sum of the total energy just before touch down and energy dissipated through the aerodynamic resistance of the aircraft configured for landing, then aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction in energy, and air speed brakes must be used to irreversibly dissipate the excess energy." The Examiner has interpreted the determination of an excess amount of energy as a determination of a positive energy delta.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer, Yochum, and Criado to further incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a high-energy profile consisting of using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive. Boyer, Yochum, and Criado are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft energy management during descent/approach phases. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Criado, as determining whether the energy delta is positive (i.e., whether there is an excess amount of energy) allows for the use of air speed brakes in order to dissipate the excess energy when aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction of energy, as recognized by Criado ([0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
and of performing a segment-by-segment backward integration, until a verification condition indicative of a target constraint having been met is satisfied.
Boyer teaches (Col. 14 lines 21-46): "In one embodiment, the holding to the altitude constraints is verified in the context of an integration in “OPEN IDLE” mode (verification that all the altitude constraints are satisfied, modification of the so-called G.P.P. point by replacing it with the first constraint missed “backward”, therefore between the preceding G.P.P. and the cruising level, if it exists). This verification of the holding to (satisfaction of) the altitude constraints culminates in a return to the step 410 with a new G.P.P. point as starting point, which corresponds to the unsatisfied altitude constraint. The list of the optimized altitudes of passage to the speed constraints can then be deleted and the steps of the method can be reiterated, by restarting from the step 410 with, as initialization point, the new G.P.P."
However, Boyer does not outright teach that the step of constructing a flight profile consisting of exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of a flight path. Criado teaches energy recovery of an aircraft, comprising:
the step of constructing a flight profile consisting of exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of a flight path,
Criado teaches ([0048]): If the total energy at TOD exceeds the sum of the total energy just before touch down and energy dissipated through the aerodynamic resistance of the aircraft configured for landing, then aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction in energy, and air speed brakes must be used to irreversibly dissipate the excess energy... The excess energy E_excess can be calculated as a function of descent angle γ and lift-to-drag ratio L/D. FIG. 3 is a graph showing the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated irreversibly using speed brakes as a function of descent angle γ and lift-to-drag ratio L/D. In FIG. 4, this energy value is converted to an equivalent mass of jet fuel."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer and Yochum to incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the step of constructing a flight profile consisting of exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of a flight path. Boyer, Yochum, and Criado are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft energy management during descent/approach phases. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Criado, as determining whether the energy delta as a function of angle of descent is positive (i.e., whether there is an excess amount of energy) allows for the use of air speed brakes in order to dissipate the excess energy when aerodynamic resistance alone is not sufficient to result in the required reduction of energy, as recognized by Criado ([0048]). Additionally, in the same paragraph, Criado provides the additional benefit of converting the determined excess energy value to an equivalent mass of jet fuel.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer, Yochum, and Criado in view of Liberman et al. (US 2018/0233056 A1), hereinafter Liberman.
Regarding claim 3, Boyer, Yochum, and Criado teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a low-energy profile consisting of exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative. Liberman teaches cockpit display systems and methods for generating cockpit displays including direct approach energy management symbology, comprising:
the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a low-energy profile consisting of exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative.
Liberman teaches ([0037]): " In the screenshot of FIG. 3, the positioning of VSD DAEM symbology 34 above VSD A/C icon 52 by a relatively large vertical offset quickly conveys that the current energy content of the ownship A/C is considerably less than the minimum energy threshold required to fly a managed energy direct approach corresponding to DA path graphic 46 (FIG. 2). Thus, should the ownship A/C receive clearance to fly a direct approach to the runway, the pilot (or other aircrew member) need only glance at VSD 32 to determine that the A/C is likely to arrive at the configuration point (the intersection between the direct approach path and the configuration ring) in an under-energy state and additional thrust may be required to perform the direct approach."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer, Yochum, and Criado to incorporate the teachings of Liberman to provide that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists of constructing a low-energy profile consisting of exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative. Boyer, Yochum, Criado, and Liberman are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft energy management during descent/approach phases. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Liberman, as doing so provides the benefit of informing the pilot that the aircraft is in an under-energy state and that additional thrust may be required to perform the direct approach, as recognized by Liberman (see at least [0037]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer and Yochum in view of Wu et al. (US 9,423,799 B1), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 16, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data. Wu teaches optimum strategies for selecting decent flight path angles, comprising:
the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data.
Wu teaches (Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 32): " A GPS receiver 311, in certain embodiments, is communicatively coupled with the processor 302. The processor 302 can receive location information from the GPS receiver 311. The location information can be used by the processor 302 to determine a location associated with the information processing system 300. In the event that the information processing system 300 is moving, the information processing system 300 can use the received GPS location information to determine a geospatial location associated with the information processing system 300. For example, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the information processing system 300 may be operating in an aircraft for which a descent profile is being planned real time while the aircraft is flying a flight path approaching a destination airport. The information processing system 300 can use the received GPS location information over time to track the flight path being followed by the aircraft, and to correspond real-time the flight path to a descent profile calculated and displayed via the user output interface 313 to a user of the information processing system 300. The user may be a member of the flight crew in the aircraft. In this way, according to one example embodiment, the information processing system 300 can output signals to the user, such as display symbols and/or colors on a display screen, to indicate to the user whether the aircraft is following the descent profile that was selected for the descent flight path into the destination airport. For example, green color may indicate that the flight path meets the selected descent profile, while a red color could indicate that the flight path fails to meet the selected descent profile. This is only one example scenario. In view of the discussions and teachings herein, it is appreciated that many other applications are contemplated for the new and novel information processing system 300 and associated methods for selecting a descent profile for a flight planned for an aircraft."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer and Yochum to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide that the steps are iteratively executed in real time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data. Boyer, Yochum, and Wu are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft descent/approach flight planning. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Wu, as performing the steps iteratively and in real-time during descent based on updated aircraft position and sensor data beneficially allows for real-time indication to the flight crew of the flight plan's compliance with the descent profile, including displaying symbols or colors on a display screen to indicate to the flight crew whether the aircraft is following the descent profile, as recognized by Wu (see at least Col. 8 line 65 - Col. 9 line 32).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer and Yochum in view of Surace (US 2021/0082208 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Boyer and Yochum teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data. Surace teaches systems and methods for detecting vehicle or environmental changes from data from automated vehicles, comprising:
the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data.
Surace teaches ([0070]): "The flight path confirmation program may extract navigation information from the vehicle data for aircraft 131, extract historical navigation information from the collective vehicle data for aircraft 131, and extract certification requirements information from the vehicle parameters. The flight path confirmation program may then update flight tracking information for the aircraft 131 (e.g., one or more of flight time, speed, GPS heading/track profile over the route 141/flight path, GPS altitude across the flight profile (take-off, transition, climb, cruise, descent, landing), and GPS latitude/longitude) of the aircraft 131, and determine whether one or more flight path confirmation conditions are satisfied. For instance, a flight path confirmation condition may determine whether the flight profile has remained within a threshold of the planned flight path 340 (in accordance with a flight time threshold, a speed threshold, a heading threshold, a GPS altitude/latitude/longitude threshold). If one or more of the flight path confirmation conditions fails (e.g., exceeds a threshold), the flight path confirmation program may determine a flight path confirmation vehicle parameter event." Surace is modified such that the GPS data-based flight path confirmation is applied to the backward computation of Boyer, which is similarly concerned with altitude-based flight plan constraints.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boyer and Surace to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide that the backward computation of predictions uses sensor data including at least one of GPS data and inertial measurement data. Boyer, Yochum, and Surace are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of aircraft descent/approach flight planning. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Surace, as utilizing sensor data including GPS data beneficially allows for determining whether one or more flight path confirmation conditions are satisfied, and in the event that the one or more flight path confirmation conditions fails, determining a responsive event, as recognized by Surace (see at least [0070]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaubey et al. (US 2015/0348423 A1) teaches a system and method for economizing flight expenditures during aircraft descent and approach, including providing a display interface including a plurality of symbols representing at least one of an idle path, a geometric path, an airbrake segment, a constant speed segment, a non-constant speed segment, and a flight path angle (see at least [0012]). Frolov et al. (US 2015/0097079 A1) teaches a method for airborne kinetic energy conversion, including determining whether an potential energy delta is positive or negative (see at least [0034]); however, Frolov et al. is concerned with converting excess kinetic or potential energy by converting the energy into a mechanical or electrical form using a turbine. Rein-Weston et al. (US 2016/0293016 A1) teaches a system and method for calculating a fuel consumption differential corresponding to an aircraft trajectory revision, including determining whether an energy delta associated with flying the aircraft at an original speed and original altitude and flying the aircraft at a revised speed and revised altitude (see at least [0008]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights