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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 02/23/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/19/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teaching of Gaul applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; while the particular cited section [0060] of Gaul does not explicitly teach the recalculation (second modified descent path/descent rate) when reviewed the amended language is anticipated by at least [0055] when read in the overall context of Gaul.
Gaul [0055] “In some embodiments, the processor 150 is operable to interface with the memory 152 to provide an indication to the pilot to cause the aircraft to initiate the modified path of descent 162 (or the recalculated path of descent 162A). For example, the processor 150 may display, via the display device 112, a prompt requiring the pilot to accept or decline initiation of the modified path of descent 162.” Here teaches the displaying of the “first” modified descent path (path with first descent rate; to rejoin the planned/proper descent path at a “first” descent rate of path 162 which from [0045] is known to be generated responsive to detecting a deviation from the original descent plan/path) “The pilot can then engage one or more components and/or systems of the aircraft that are internal and/or external to the system 102 for initiating or traversing the modified path of descent 162, as described below. In some embodiments, the processor 150 is operable to interface with the memory 152 to elicit operator confirmation of a modified path of descent 162 for the aircraft 100 that violates an operator-selected and/or predefined characteristic, as described below. If the operator terminates the modified path of descent 162, the processor 150 may be operable to adjust the modified path of descent 162 to comply with the operator-selected and/or predefined characteristics.” Here teaches that responsive to the operator (aircrew input) terminating a first modified flight path a second one is planned (automatically adjusted) to create a new modified descent flight path which does comply with the operator selected limits, which from [0051] is known to include descent rate, thus teaching if the “first” descent rate of the first modified descent path violates the operator characteristic (descent rate) then the operator can then input a path termination/reject command which causes the system to generate a new second modified descent plan which does comply with user selected/predefined characteristics (descent rate limits).
Thus when [0055] is read in light of [0060] it teaches that in the advent that a user terminates/rejects the first proposed flight path of [0060] that a second one which does comply with user defined limits/characteristics (descent rate) is generated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220214190 A1, “AUTOMATED AVIONICS SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A MODIFIED PATH OF DESCENT OF AN AIRCRAFT”, Gaul et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Gaul et al teaches “. A method for capturing a modified flight descent path for an aircraft, comprising: generating a original descent approach path for an aircraft with a flight management system (FMS);”( [0026] “Accordingly, automated avionics systems and methods for determining a modified path of descent for an aircraft are described. In an embodiment, an automated avionics system includes a display device for providing a graphical interface for displaying flight-related information to a pilot, and an interface device disposed on the display device for receiving information from the pilot and allowing the pilot to interact with the graphical interface. The system further includes a memory operable to store a database related to a flight plan, the database including information related to the flight plan such as a position of descent for the aircraft, altitude constraint(s), and a path of descent including a vertical trajectory between the first position of descent and a downstream altitude point” The avionics include a database which includes a flight plan including descent plan/approach );” deviating from the original descent approach path during flight operations;”( [0045]” In some implementations, the processor 150 is operable to interface with the memory 152 to determine whether a deviation is present between the original TOD 166 and the position of the aircraft associated with the descent indication. For example, the processor 150 can detect a deviation, greater than a predetermined deviation threshold, between the altitude of the aircraft in the indicated point in the horizontal plane and the altitude in this given point as provided by the original descent trajectory. This deviation threshold corresponds to a tolerance margin between the altitude of the aircraft at the indicated point and the altitude provided by the original descent trajectory.”);” generating a proposed recovery path for the aircraft with the FMS, where the proposed recovery path rejoins the original descent approach path at a first descent rate of the aircraft; receiving inputs for the proposed recovery path for the aircraft with the FMS, where the inputs comprised aircraft flight parameters that are received from aircrew members of the aircraft; modifying the proposed recovery path to comply with the inputs from the aircrew members;”( [0055] In some embodiments, the processor 150 is operable to interface with the memory 152 to provide an indication to the pilot to cause the aircraft to initiate the modified path of descent 162 (or the recalculated path of descent 162A). For example, the processor 150 may display, via the display device 112, a prompt requiring the pilot to accept or decline initiation of the modified path of descent 162. “Here teaches the displaying of the “first” modified descent path (path with first descent rate; to rejoin the planned/proper descent path at a “first” descent rate which from [0045] is known to be generated responsive to detecting a deviation from the original descent plan/path” The pilot can then engage one or more components and/or systems of the aircraft that are internal and/or external to the system 102 for initiating or traversing the modified path of descent 162, as described below. In some embodiments, the processor 150 is operable to interface with the memory 152 to elicit operator confirmation of a modified path of descent 162 for the aircraft 100 that violates an operator-selected and/or predefined characteristic, as described below. If the operator terminates the modified path of descent 162, the processor 150 may be operable to adjust the modified path of descent 162 to comply with the operator-selected and/or predefined characteristics.” Here teaches displaying of a modified descent, awaiting operator confirmation (or termination/adjustment of characteristics) and subsequently adjust the modified descent path to comply with operated-selected characteristics; i.e. generate new (second) modified flight path which does comply with operator-selected/predefined (from [0045]/[0060] it is known that these characteristics includes descent rate) characteristics (i.e. has a different (second) descent rate), thus teaching that this second modified descent plan includes those which have a lower descent rate (which does comply with the user input/maximum threshold descent rate) than a potential first modified plan which violates the maximum descent rate threshold. [0060] “In some embodiments, the display 200 is configured for receiving operator-selected characteristics related to the modified path of descent 162 (e.g., descent rate, flight path angle limit, etc.). For example, the display 200 can include a selectable button 210 for inputting a desired descent rate, minimum descent rate, or maximum descent rate (e.g., as described with reference to FIG. 15). In some embodiments, the display 200 is configured for receiving input from the operator to confirm or terminate the modified path of descent 162 based on operator-selected and/or predefined characteristics (e.g., descent rate, flight path angle limit, etc.). For example, when the modified path of descent 162 violates an operator-selected or predefined characteristic, a modal popup 208 can be displayed requiring the operator to approve or cancel initiation of the modified path of descent (e.g., as described with reference to FIGS. 14A, 14B, 16).” Here teaches that the path of descent characteristics/modifying includes setting descent rate of the aircraft);” and integrating the modified recovery path into the original descent approach path with the FMS.”( [0056] In one or more embodiments, the processor 150 is operable to engage one or more control systems of the aircraft 100 to initiate the modified path of descent 162 (or recalculated path of descent 162A). )
Regarding Claim 3, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 2, where the second descent rate of the aircraft is set to a predetermined maximum descent rate with the FMS.”([0060] as cited in claim 1 above, teaches setting of a descent rate (via the FMS), this includes a maximum descent rate, teaching setting the descent rate of the aircraft to the maximum descent rate in scenarios where a hypothetical approach would violate that the maximum descent rate (i.e. the maximum descent rate is a upper limit in which any plan above that rate is adjusted to comply with the maximum descent rate responsive to a operator terminating/rejecting the first modified plan in [0055]))
Regarding Claim 4, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 3, wherein the predetermined maximum descent rate of the aircraft is set at any point during flight operations of the aircraft.”([0060] as cited in claim 2 teaches characteristics (including maximum descent rate) can be inputted via a display, i.e. during operation of the aircraft.)
Regarding Claim 5, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 1, where the aircraft flight parameters further include the altitude of the aircraft.”( [0026] “The processor is operable to receive, from the interface device, an indication to initiate descent of the aircraft associated with a position of the aircraft, receive information related to the flight plan from the database, and perform modification(s) to the path of descent. Performing the modification(s) to the path of descent includes determining, based on a comparison of the first position of descent and the position of the aircraft,” Here teaches that the pilot inputs a indication to start descent, (after the original top of descent point) which read in light of [0025] While automated avionics systems may provide the functionality flight crew and/or autopilot navigation of the aircraft (e.g., according to a predefined flight plan), these systems lack the ability to account for deviations from the flight plan without substantial pilot intervention. Under certain circumstances, it may be desirable to initiate descent of the aircraft prior to or after a predetermined top of descent point (TOD) associated with the flight plan, requiring a deviation from the original descent trajectory. For example, the pilot may receive authorization to initiate descent of the aircraft prior to reaching the TOD. In other circumstances, the pilot may reach or pass the TOD without receiving authorization to initiate descent. Under such circumstances, it may be desirable to initiate descent of the aircraft at a desired geographic location and/or altitude other than the TOD, while maintaining and/or accounting for aspects of the flight plan.” Teaches that the indication of [0026] is/includes altitude of the aircraft)
Regarding Claim 8, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 1, further comprising: displaying the proposed recovery path for the aircraft on a vertical navigation (VNAV) display to the aircrew.”( [0058] FIGS. 12A through 16 illustrate example displays 200 furnishing flight information to the pilot and configured to receive input from the pilot and provide functionality for the pilot to engage with the graphic interface 104. For example, the display 200 can include information related to the flight plan including, but not limited to: a moving map, flight path angle, descent rate, navigation information, and so forth. In some embodiments, the processor 150 may cause the modified path of descent 162 and/or the recalculated path of descent 162A to be displayed to the pilot via one or the more display devices 112 and graphical interface 104 of the aircraft 100. For example, one or more of the moving maps, virtual situation displays, and/or synthetic vision technology displays of the graphical interface 104 may be updated to include the modified path of descent 162 and/or recalculated path of descent 162A.)
Regarding Claim 9, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 8, further comprising: displaying the modified recovery path for the aircraft on the VNAV display to the aircrew.”( ( [0058] FIGS. 12A through 16 illustrate example displays 200 furnishing flight information to the pilot and configured to receive input from the pilot and provide functionality for the pilot to engage with the graphic interface 104. For example, the display 200 can include information related to the flight plan including, but not limited to: a moving map, flight path angle, descent rate, navigation information, and so forth. In some embodiments, the processor 150 may cause the modified path of descent 162 and/or the recalculated path of descent 162A to be displayed to the pilot via one or the more display devices 112 and graphical interface 104 of the aircraft 100. For example, one or more of the moving maps, virtual situation displays, and/or synthetic vision technology displays of the graphical interface 104 may be updated to include the modified path of descent 162 and/or recalculated path of descent 162A.)
Regarding Claim 10, Gaul et al teaches “The method of Claim 1, where the aircraft is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).”( [0071] It is to be understood that the terms “operator” and “pilot” are used interchangeably herein to describe any pilot, co-pilot, crew member, or other person who operates or controls the aircraft. It is to be further understood that the terms “operator” and “pilot” are also used interchangeably herein to describe any autonomous or semi-autonomous system that operates or controls the aircraft.” Here teaches that in the context of Gaul that the vehicle can be autonomous or semi-autonomous (i.e. a unmanned aerial vehicle))
Regarding Claims 11-15 and 18, they are system equivalents to method claims 1-5 and 8 above, Gaul teaches the claimed “flight management system (FMS)” (Abstract: “An automated avionics system for determining a modified descent path of an aircraft includes a memory operable to store a database of flight information related to a flight plan and a processor operably coupled with the memory. The processor is operable to receive an indication to initiate descent of the aircraft associated with a position of the aircraft, receive information related to the flight plan from the database, and based on the information received, perform modifications to the path of descent. The processor is further operable to, based on a comparison of an original position of descent and the indicated position, determine a modified position of descent for the aircraft and calculate a modified path of descent, the modified path of descent complying with the of altitude constraint(s) of the flight plan.” ) and vertical navigation display (VNAV) ([0026] teaches a display of the vertical descent path) as such claims 11, 13-15 and 18 have the same overall grounds of rejection as their respective equivalents above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaul et al as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 10854094 B2, “Rejoining Trajectory Adjustment Method For Aircraft”, Dacre-Wright et al.
Regarding Claim 6, While Gaul et al does teach the concept of time constraints (i.e. teaches time based “flight parameters”) ([0040] In embodiments, the memory 152 is operable to store a database of flight-related information associated with a flight plan of the aircraft. Flight-related information associated with the flight plan can include: a position of descent for the aircraft (also noted as top of descent or TOD), geographical constraints, and a path of descent including a vertical trajectory between the first position of descent and a downstream geographical point (e.g. a downstream altitude point). The geographical constraints include passage points for the aircraft in a horizontal plane, with which are associated possible constraints (e.g., altitude constraints, speed constraints, time constraints, etc.). In a specific embodiment, the altitude constraints each define an altitude above, below, or at which the aircraft has to fly at a given point.)
It does not teach that time constraints are/include (and the subsequent operator adjustment of constraints) is specifically “a time period to rejoin the descent approach path.”
Dacre-wright teaches aircraft flight path rejoining trajectory generation system, which includes rejoining descent paths (A method is provided for adjusting a flight plan rejoining trajectory of an aircraft, the method being implemented in a flight management system of the aircraft. In a first step, the rejoining trajectory comprises a guidance setpoint holding point to be reached situated in the extension of a guidance setpoint, and set manually or automatically, the guidance setpoint no longer being necessarily maintained when this setpoint holding point is passed. This first step can be preceded by a step of rejoining a guidance setpoint or a step of searching for the intersection of the current guidance setpoint trajectory with a segment of the flight plan.” + Figure 9 which shows the rejoining path applied to a descent path/scenario); which includes setting/determining of the rejoining trajectory based on a the user selection/modification of the time to rejoin the original plan trajectory (Column 3, lines 45-51, “Advantageously, a guidance setpoint holding point corresponds to a geographic point along the guidance setpoint, said geographic point being defined either by a distance, or by a time duration, or by an altitude variation or an altitude to be reached, or by the crossing of the trajectory with a radial, that is to say a half-line defined by a geographic point and a direction.” Teaches that the set point includes a time duration/range for rejoining a reference path/trajectory)
IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Gaul et al to includes the time duration defined setpoint guidance for determining a modified/adjusted approach descent path as a form “time constraint” as taught by Dacre-Wright. One would be motivated to implement the time-duration based constraints and flight recovery checking/path setting based on this to allow the system to determine and search for shorter (duration) flight paths, saving on fuel. (Column 8, line 18-25, “In other cases, the pilot may have manually set an unnecessarily distant setpoint holding point, leading to an unnecessarily long trajectory length for the descent, or the required flight duration, and possibly necessitating a surplus of thrust and a pointless fuel expenditure. A shortening of trajectory can then be proposed. In these different cases, the method can automatically determine a heading deselection point adjusted according to need.”)
Regarding Claim 16 it is a system equivalent to method claim 6, it has the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination as cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaul et al as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20100324812 A1, “Method Of Short-term Rejoining Of A Flight Plan By Radar Guidance Of An Aircraft”, Sacle et al.
Regarding Claim 7, Gaul et al does not teach that flight parameters includes a lateral position to rejoin the flight path at.
Sacle et al teaches a flight path rejoining system which includes setting of a flight parameters which includes the lateral position at which the aircraft should rejoin the planned plan, which includes descent paths. ([0012] For this purpose, the subject of the invention is a method of formulating a lateral flight trajectory for the rejoining by an aircraft of a trajectory of a flight plan comprising a plurality of waypoints, the aircraft flying outside of the flight plan and according to a divergent track with respect to the trajectory of the flight plan, characterized in that the method: [0013] determines a waypoint of the flight plan for the rejoining, defined as the first waypoint of the flight plan included in a capture zone defined by the flight plan trajectory situated downstream of the point of intersection between the straight line defined by an angle .alpha. with the perpendicular to the track of the aircraft and the trajectory of the flight plan, [0014] formulates the optimal lateral flight trajectory for a rejoining by the aircraft at the determined waypoint.” Here the setting of a capture zone for the lateral flight path teaches setting (a range of) later position(s) to rejoin the original flight path. + [0095] teaches that the overall flight plan includes landing (descent) phases. + [0165] “While cruising and while descending, the pilot can use the method according to one of the embodiments of the invention, according to the same criteria facilitating the rejoining of the flight plan when authorized to do so by the air traffic control bodies.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Gaul et al to include the lateral flight path rejoining and capture zone setting as taught by Sacle et al. One would be motivated to implement the lateral guidance system of Sacle into Gaul to reduce the overall workload on the pilot, allowing them to focus on other portions of the descent phase (e.g. managing airspeed/descent speed) improving safety. Sacle teaches this improvement ([0010] An advantage of the invention is that it allows better anticipation of the navigation feedback along a flight plan, and a reduction in the workload required to guide the aircraft according to the vagaries of the trajectory constrained notably by the air traffic control bodies.)
Regarding Claim 17 it is a system equivalent to the method claim 7 above, it has the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination as claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights