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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 12/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2314070 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application FR2314070 to which priority is claimed failed on 05/13/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (i.e., "…which aims to maximize employment of the idle regime while minimizing use of air brakes via more efficient deceleration."). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the steps consisting in…” should be “the steps consisting of…”, as the steps refer to distinct steps of the claimed method rather than an abstract assessment of the steps themselves.
In claim 1, “the optimized flight profile consisting, for said section, either in exclusively applying thrust or in exclusively using air brakes,” should be “the optimized flight profile consisting of, for said section, either exclusively applying thrust or of exclusively using air brakes,” as exclusively applying thrust or exclusively using air brakes are distinct components of the optimized flight profile rather than an abstract assessment of the steps themselves.
In claim 2, “wherein the evaluating step consists in determining…” should be “wherein the evaluating step consists of determining…”, as the act of determining refers to a distinct component of the evaluating step rather than an abstract assessment of the step itself.
In claim 3, “wherein the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a low-energy profile consisting in exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative.” should be “wherein 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.” as the act of constructing a low-energy profile refers to a distinct component of the step of constructing an optimized flight profile rather than an abstract assessment of the step itself.
In claim 4, “wherein the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a high-energy profile consisting in using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive.” should be “wherein 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.”, as the act of constructing a high-energy profile refers to a distinct component of the step of constructing an optimized flight profile rather than an abstract assessment of the step itself.
In claim 5, “wherein the step of constructing a flight profile consisting in exclusively applying air brakes” should be “wherein the step of constructing a flight profile consisting of exclusively applying air brakes”, as the act of exclusively applying air brakes in the flight profile refers to a distinct component of the step of constructing the flight profile rather than an abstract assessment of the step itself.
In claim 7, “a step of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in selected mode” should be “a step of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in a selected mode”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 11: “A device for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases, the device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method of claim 1.”
The written description provides support for such a device in at least [0071], which discloses: “The invention also relates to a computer program product comprising code instructions allowing the steps of the method of the invention to be performed, when said program is executed on a computer.” Therefore, the device of claim 11 is being interpreted as a computer executing code instructions allowing the steps of the method of the invention to be performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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 “determining an initial idle flight path at idle thrust, between an anchor point and the cruise flight level,” However, antecedent basis already exists in claim 1 for “when a waypoint is identified as an anchor point”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the second invocation of “an anchor point” refers to the same anchor point. Consequently, the limitation “defining a working section between the anchor point and the waypoint” is likewise rendered indefinite, as it is unclear which anchor point is being referred to. Further, the claim recites “and constructing an optimized flight profile taking into account the evaluation,” However, antecedent basis already exists in the claim for “evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the idle flight path;” and “evaluating an energy delta to join the idle path;” Therefore, it is unclear which evaluation is being referred to for the step of constructing an optimized flight profile taking into account the evaluation.
Claims 2-13 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 2-13 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the evaluating step consists in determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive.” However, as claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1, this limitation is rendered indefinite because it is unclear which evaluation is being referred to. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3-4 are dependent upon claim 2 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 3-4 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the step of determining, in a 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.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, already recites “defining a working section between the anchor point and the waypoint where the altitude constraint is not met, and determining whether, in this section, there is both one or more decelerated flight segments and one or more constant-speed flight segments;” Therefore, it is unclear whether the working section of claim 6 is required to be the same working section of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the working sections are being interpreted as the same.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “a step of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in selected mode…” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the speed of the aircraft”. While claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, does refer to constant-speed flight segments, it is not clear which of these flight segments includes “the” speed of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, the obtained path with an optimized flight profile.” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the obtained path”. Further, claim 1, upon which claim 1 depends, already recites “an optimized flight profile”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the optimized flight profile of claim 8 is the same optimized flight profile as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “A device for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases, the device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method of claim 1.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 11 depends, already recites to “an aircraft”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aircraft of claim 11 is the same as the aircraft of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the aircraft of claim 11 is being interpreted as the same aircraft as the aircraft of claim 1.
Claims 12-13 are dependent upon claim 11 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “An aircraft flight management system comprising a device according to claim 11.” However, claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, already recites to “an aircraft” and “a flight management system”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the aircraft and the flight management system of claim 12 are the same as the aircraft and flight management system of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, the aircraft and the flight management system of claim 12 is being interpreted as the same aircraft as the aircraft of claim 1. Further, claim 11, upon which claim 12 depends, already recites “A device”; it is therefore unclear whether the device of claim 12 is the same as the device of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “A piece of non-avionics aircraft equipment comprising a device according to claim 11.” However, claim 11, upon which claim 13 depends, already recites “A device”; it is therefore unclear whether the device of claim 13 is the same as the device of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-13 are directed to determining whether altitude constraints are met for an idle flight path, determining whether there is both one or more decelerated flight segments and one or more constant-speed flight segments in a working section between an anchor point and a waypoint, evaluating an energy delta to join the idle path, and construction an optimized flight profile taking into account the evaluation. Decision-making processes fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind: i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-13 recite a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the abstract ideas of determining whether altitude constraints are met for an idle flight path, determining whether there is both one or more decelerated flight segments and one or more constant-speed flight segments in a working section between an anchor point and a waypoint, evaluating an energy delta to join the idle path, and construction an optimized flight profile taking into account the evaluation in the following limitations:
steps executed in the course of a backward computation of predictions
when a waypoint is identified as an anchor point having altitude constraints but no slope constraints,
the steps consisting in: determining an initial idle flight path at idle thrust, between an anchor point and the cruise flight level,
and evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the idle flight path;
if at least one altitude constraint is not met, defining a working section between the anchor point and the waypoint where the altitude constraint is not met,
and determining whether, in this section, there is both one or more decelerated flight segments and one or more constant-speed flight segments;
and 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.
The above-recited limitations establish the use of generic computing devices (i.e., “A computer-implemented method”, “a flight management system”) to perform a decision-making process. This arrangement amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. This concept has been considered ineligible as a mental process by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The steps of the above method are capable of being carried out mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper based on visual observation and analysis of information. While the claim does refer to “exclusively applying thrust or in exclusively using air brakes”, the Examiner notes that these limitations do not refer to controlling thrust or air brakes; rather, the optimized flight profile merely indicates this information for a particular working section.
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
A computer-implemented method for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases,
steps executed in the course of a backward computation of predictions by a flight management system,
These additional elements merely amount to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The specification sets forth the general-purpose nature of the computing technology. Paragraph [0053] discloses that “[the invention] may be easily customized to various versions of flight management systems. It may also be implemented on a flight tablet external to a management system, i.e. in a non-avionics system, and coupled operationally to such a flight management system.” Paragraph [0071] discloses that “The invention also relates to a computer program product comprising code instructions allowing the steps of the method of the invention to be performed, when said program is executed on a computer.” That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding claim 2, which sets forth:
the evaluating step consists in determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of the evaluating step by further requiring determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive. The act of determining whether a numerical value (e.g., an energy delta) is negative or positive is an abstract mathematical concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) capable of being evaluated mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, which sets forth:
the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a low-energy profile consisting in exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of the step of constructing an optimized flight profile by further requiring the construction of a low-energy profile consisting in exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative. The Examiner notes that the limitation “consisting in exclusively applying thrust” refers to the contents of the low-energy profile rather than an act of controlling thrust of the aircraft. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, which sets forth:
the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a high-energy profile consisting in using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of the step of constructing an optimized flight profile by further requiring the construction of a high-energy profile consisting in exclusively using the air brakes if the energy delta is positive. The Examiner notes that the limitation “consisting in using exclusively the air brakes” refers to the contents of the high-energy profile rather than an act of controlling the air brakes. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth:
the step of constructing a flight profile consisting in exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of the flight path,
and of performing a segment-by-segment backward integration, until a verification condition indicative of the target constraint having been met is satisfied.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of constructing a flight profile consisting in exclusively applying the air brakes by further requiring the determination of an angle of the flight path and of performing a segment-by-segment backward integration until a verification condition is satisfied. Such determinations and calculations are abstract decision-making processes capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, which sets forth:
the step of determining, in a 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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of determining, in the working section, the decelerated flight segments and the constant-speed flight segments by including the additional step of construction 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. Such determinations are abstract decision-making processes capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which sets forth:
a step of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in selected mode and if so solely maintaining construction of a geometric flight profile.
Such a recitation introduces the additional abstract idea of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in a selected mode and if so solely maintaining construction of a geometric flight profile. Such determinations are abstract decision-making processes capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, which sets forth:
a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, the obtained path with an optimized flight profile.
Such a recitation introduces the additional element of a cockpit display screen, and a step of displaying, on the cockpit display screen, an obtained path with an optimized flight profile. Here, the act of displaying the obtained path with the optimized flight profile on a cockpit display screen amounts to insignificant post-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) well-known to the art, as the optimized flight profile has already been determined in claim 1 and the results are merely made to be displayed on a cockpit display screen. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, which sets forth:
a step of defining a new anchor point.
Such a recitation introduces the additional abstract idea of defining a new anchor point. Determining an anchor point, particularly at this high level of generality, is an abstract decision-making process capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, which sets forth:
A computer program product comprising code instructions allowing the steps of the method according to claim 1 to be performed, when said program is executed on a computer.
Such a recitation introduces the additional elements of a computer program product comprising code instructions allowing steps of the method of claim 1 to be performed when said program is executed on a computer. Such a recitation amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, which sets forth:
A device for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases, the device comprising means for implementing the steps of the method of claim 1.
Such a recitation introduces the additional elements of a device (see 35 USC 112(f) interpretation above) comprising means for implementing the steps of the method of claim 1. Such a recitation amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, which sets forth:
An aircraft flight management system comprising a device according to claim 11.
Such a recitation embellishes upon the additional elements of a the aircraft flight management system by specifying that the aircraft flight management system comprises a device according to claim 11. Such a recitation amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, which sets forth:
A piece of non-avionics aircraft equipment comprising a device according to claim 11.
Such a recitation introduces the additional element of a piece of non-avionics aircraft equipment comprising a device according to claim 11. Such a recitation amounts to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer et al. (US 11,353886 B2), hereinafter Boyer.
Regarding claim 1, Boyer discloses a computer-implemented method (“a computer program product… comprising code instructions making it possible to perform one or more steps of the method, when said program is run on a computer”, Col. 9 lines 31-34) for managing energy to be dissipated for an aircraft during descent and approach phases, the method comprising:
steps executed in the course of a backward computation of predictions by a flight management system,
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."
when a waypoint is identified as an anchor point having altitude constraints but no slope constraints,
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").
the steps consisting in: determining an initial idle flight path at idle thrust, between an anchor point and the 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."
and evaluating whether all altitude constraints are met for the 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, defining a working section between the 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 this section, there is both one or more decelerated flight segments and one or more constant-speed flight segments;
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: evaluating an energy delta to join the idle 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 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 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 taking into account 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 above equations]" 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."
the optimized flight profile consisting, for said section, either in exclusively applying thrust or in 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 above equations]" 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 the 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.
Regarding claim 6, Boyer teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
the step of determining, in a 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 teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
a step of determining whether the speed of the aircraft is being managed in 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 teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, while Boyer does teach a step of displaying, on a cockpit display screen, the 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, the 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, the 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 teaches 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 teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
A computer program product comprising code instructions allowing the steps of the method according to claim 1 to be performed, when said program 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." See 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Boyer teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
A device for managing energy to be dissipated for an 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 teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. Boyer further teaches:
An aircraft flight management system comprising a 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 12, Boyer teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 11. Boyer further teaches:
A piece of non-avionics aircraft equipment comprising a 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyer in view of Criado et al. (US 2015/0307201 A1), hereinafter Criado.
Regarding claim 2, Boyer teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. However, Boyer does not outright teach that the evaluating step consists in determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive. Criado teaches energy recovery of an aircraft, comprising:
the evaluating step consists in 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 to incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the evaluating step consists in determining whether the energy delta is negative or positive. Boyer 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 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 in constructing a high-energy profile consisting in using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive. Criado further teaches:
the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a high-energy profile consisting in 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 and Criado to further incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a high-energy profile consisting in using exclusively the air brakes if the energy delta is positive. Boyer 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 teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Boyer further teaches:
and of performing a segment-by-segment backward integration, until a verification condition indicative of the 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 in exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of the flight path. Criado teaches energy recovery of an aircraft, comprising:
the step of constructing a flight profile consisting in exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of the 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 Criado to further incorporate the teachings of Criado to provide that the step of constructing a flight profile consisting in exclusively applying air brakes comprises steps of determining an angle of the flight path. Boyer 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 and Criado in view of Liberman et al. (US 2018/0233056 A1), hereinafter Liberman.
Regarding claim 3, Boyer 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 in constructing a low-energy profile consisting in 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 in constructing a low-energy profile consisting in 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 and Criado to incorporate the teachings of Liberman to provide that the step of constructing an optimized flight profile consists in constructing a low-energy profile consisting in exclusively applying thrust if the energy delta is negative. Boyer, 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]).
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]).
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