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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krawiec et al. US 20220130264 A1 (“Krawiec”) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims have distinguished the claim language from Krawiec. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Krawiec in combination with Mallampati US 20240254894 A1 (“Mallampati”).
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. US 20220130264 A1 (“Krawiec”) in view of Krawiec in combination with Mallampati US 20240254894 A1 (“Mallampati”).
Regarding Claim 1. Krawiec teaches an aircraft comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive input identifying a first equipment item as inoperative (A vehicle health module may monitor aircraft components, using a variety of methods such as sensor detection, Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, etc., to assess a capability and health of the VTOL aircraft. From these inputs, the vehicle health module 132 may determine if an emergency landing should be performed. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, detection of engine failure causing the controller 120 to command autorotation, and detection of actuation failure causing the controller 120 to perform actuator reconfiguration [paragraph 40]);
select, based on the input identifying the first equipment item as inoperative, an adjustment factor to be applied during engine performance calculations for a particular planned flight of the aircraft (FIG. 5 shows a failure procedure matrix for an aircraft, such as a VTOL. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, such as loss of thrust in a rotor or a pedal jamming, the controller at 120 may immediately proceed through the steps of selecting the preferred LZ based on each of the plurality of inputs [paragraph 89], and a damage tolerant autopilot may make adjustments to stabilize the VTOL accordingly, also shown in FIG. 5 [paragraph 92]);
determine, based on the adjustment factor and ambient condition data associated with the aircraft, a set of engine performance planning metrics for the particular planned flight (FIG. 5, paragraph 92); and
determine, based on the set of engine performance planning metrics, a weight penalty, a fuel penalty, or both, for the particular planned flight (the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 51]. Here, the controller 120 may receive a continuous data stream from the aircraft state module 130 which may include each state parameter associated with the VTOL aircraft. In addition, the controller 120 may receive, from the state data module, the environmental input including an altitude wind vector associated with the VTOL aircraft altitude, and a surface wind vector, each associated with the VTOL aircraft position. As altitude winds and surface winds may play a part in determining not only the LZ range but also the preferred LZ, a continuous wind update to the controller 120 may enable accurate data for use in calculations. The method may include, at a step 610, continuously determining and updating an LZ range, the LZ range a current glide range of the VTOL aircraft associated with the VTOL aircraft position and based on each of: the at least one aircraft state input, the at least one environmental input, the at least one engine performance input, and the at least one aircraft performance input, and at a step 612, receiving, from a 3D world model onboard the VTOL aircraft, at least one alternate LZ within the LZ range, the at least one alternate LZ a non-airport LZ capable of accepting an emergency landing of the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 90], which means that the state data includes anything from fuel to weight data, and this is used to determine the LZ range to determine how far the VTOL aircraft can travel for a safe emergency landing); wherein
the set of engine performance planning metrics and the weight penalty, the fuel penalty, or both are determined prior to departure of the air craft on the particular planned flight (an example scenario for the VTOL aircraft includes launching from a takeoff airport and planning to fly a planned route to a destination airport [paragraph 74]. The VTOL aircraft can receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft, and can receive this data in a continuous data stream during travel [paragraph 51]. It is implicit from this disclosure that the system receives this state information before the VTOL takes off).
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process.
However, Mallampati teaches:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process (Governing administrative bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and others work with aircraft manufacturers to produce a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for each specific aircraft model. The MMEL provides which inoperative pieces of equipment an aircraft may have and still be airworthy. The philosophy behind MMEL and related Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is to authorize release of flight with inoperative equipment only when the inoperative equipment does not render the aircraft unairworthy for the particular flight to avoid revenue loss to the operator and discomfort to the passengers [paragraph 47]. It’s also indicated by this disclosure that this is federally mandated in most nations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process as taught by Mallampati, in part because this appears to be mandated by federal law, and to ensure that the aircraft passes necessary safety checks before taking off.
Regarding Claim 2. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec also teaches:
further comprising a Control Display Unit (CDU), wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the input via the CDU (In embodiments, the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may function onboard a manned and unmanned VTOL aircraft. In the case of the manned aircraft, a human operator 160 may interact with the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 using traditional interfaces as well as receive flight direction via a flight display 170 [paragraph 49]. In a further embodiment where the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 is functional onboard a manned VTOL aircraft and a flight display 170 may be available to the manned operator 160, the controller 120 may receive the immediate landing request from either the manned operator 160 or the vehicle health module 132 [paragraph 67]).
Regarding Claim 4. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein, to determine the set of engine performance planning metrics, the one or more processors are configured to:
calculate a base power setting;
apply the adjustment factor to the base power setting to generate an adjusted power setting (FIG. 5 describes how the power setting is adjusted in the fifth column); and
determine the set of engine performance planning metrics based on the adjusted power setting (FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 5. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 4.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the adjusted power setting to an Electronic Engine Control (EEC) for implementation during the particular planned flight (The vehicle health module is capable of monitoring an engine performance input [paragraph 5], and with guidance outputs from the flight director 182, the damage tolerant autopilot 180 or flight control computer (FCC) may provide inner loop flight control to automatically stabilize the VTOL aircraft and follow the guidance commands [paragraph 91], which necessarily means some form of electronic engine control).
Regarding Claim 6. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein to determine the set of engine performance planning metrics, the one or more processors are configured to:
receive the ambient condition data comprising at least one of pressure altitude, temperature, airspeed, or barometric altitude; and
determine the set of engine performance planning metrics based on both the adjustment factor and the ambient condition data (The method may include, at a step 602, receiving, from a state data module onboard a VTOL aircraft, at least one aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, each associated with the VTOL aircraft, and at a step 604, receiving, from the state data module, at least one environmental input including a surface wind magnitude and a surface wind direction, each associated with the VTOL aircraft position [paragraph 95], which is then factored into the state data used in determining the flight plan adjustment factor and ambient condition data described previously).
Regarding Claim 9. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive input identifying a second equipment item as inoperative;
select, based on both the first equipment item and the second equipment item being inoperative, a combined adjustment factor that accounts for combined effects of both inoperative items; and
determine the set of engine performance planning metrics based on the combined adjustment factor (The matrix of FIG. 5 shows multiple components that can fail, and is designed to be able to handle a plurality of failure-based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft to the preferred LZ [paragraph 90]).
Regarding Claim 10. Krawiec teaches an aircraft comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive input identifying a first equipment item as inoperative (A vehicle health module may monitor aircraft components, using a variety of methods such as sensor detection, Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, etc., to assess a capability and health of the VTOL aircraft. From these inputs, the vehicle health module 132 may determine if an emergency landing should be performed. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, detection of engine failure causing the controller 120 to command autorotation, and detection of actuation failure causing the controller 120 to perform actuator reconfiguration [paragraph 40]);
based on the input, select an adjustment factor associated with an inoperative status of the first equipment item (FIG. 5 shows a failure procedure matrix for an aircraft, such as a VTOL. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, such as loss of thrust in a rotor or a pedal jamming, the controller at 120 may immediately proceed through the steps of selecting the preferred LZ based on each of the plurality of inputs [paragraph 89], and a damage tolerant autopilot may make adjustments to stabilize the VTOL accordingly, also shown in FIG. 5 [paragraph 92]);
calculate a set of engine performance planning metrics for a planned flight based on the adjustment factor and based on ambient condition data associated with a flight path of the planned flight (FIG. 5, paragraph 92); and
determine, based on the set of engine performance planning metrics, a weight penalty, a fuel penalty, or both, for the planned flight (the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 51]. Here, the controller 120 may receive a continuous data stream from the aircraft state module 130 which may include each state parameter associated with the VTOL aircraft. In addition, the controller 120 may receive, from the state data module, the environmental input including an altitude wind vector associated with the VTOL aircraft altitude, and a surface wind vector, each associated with the VTOL aircraft position. As altitude winds and surface winds may play a part in determining not only the LZ range but also the preferred LZ, a continuous wind update to the controller 120 may enable accurate data for use in calculations. The method may include, at a step 610, continuously determining and updating an LZ range, the LZ range a current glide range of the VTOL aircraft associated with the VTOL aircraft position and based on each of: the at least one aircraft state input, the at least one environmental input, the at least one engine performance input, and the at least one aircraft performance input, and at a step 612, receiving, from a 3D world model onboard the VTOL aircraft, at least one alternate LZ within the LZ range, the at least one alternate LZ a non-airport LZ capable of accepting an emergency landing of the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 90], which means that the state data includes anything from fuel to weight data, and this is used to determine the LZ range to determine how far the VTOL aircraft can travel for a safe emergency landing); wherein
the set of engine performance planning metrics and the weight penalty, the fuel penalty, or both are determined prior to departure of the air craft on the particular planned flight (an example scenario for the VTOL aircraft includes launching from a takeoff airport and planning to fly a planned route to a destination airport [paragraph 74]. The VTOL aircraft can receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft, and can receive this data in a continuous data stream during travel [paragraph 51]. It is implicit from this disclosure that the system receives this state information before the VTOL takes off).
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process.
However, Mallampati teaches:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process (Governing administrative bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and others work with aircraft manufacturers to produce a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for each specific aircraft model. The MMEL provides which inoperative pieces of equipment an aircraft may have and still be airworthy. The philosophy behind MMEL and related Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is to authorize release of flight with inoperative equipment only when the inoperative equipment does not render the aircraft unairworthy for the particular flight to avoid revenue loss to the operator and discomfort to the passengers [paragraph 47]. It’s also indicated by this disclosure that this is federally mandated in most nations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process as taught by Mallampati, in part because this appears to be mandated by federal law, and to ensure that the aircraft passes necessary safety checks before taking off.
Regarding Claim 11. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec also teaches:
further comprising a Control Display Unit (CDU), wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the input via the CDU (In embodiments, the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may function onboard a manned and unmanned VTOL aircraft. In the case of the manned aircraft, a human operator 160 may interact with the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 using traditional interfaces as well as receive flight direction via a flight display 170 [paragraph 49]. In a further embodiment where the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 is functional onboard a manned VTOL aircraft and a flight display 170 may be available to the manned operator 160, the controller 120 may receive the immediate landing request from either the manned operator 160 or the vehicle health module 132 [paragraph 67]).
Regarding Claim 14. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein to determine the set of engine performance planning metrics, the one or more processors are configured to receive the ambient condition data comprising at least one of pressure altitude, temperature, airspeed, or barometric altitude (The method may include, at a step 602, receiving, from a state data module onboard a VTOL aircraft, at least one aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, each associated with the VTOL aircraft, and at a step 604, receiving, from the state data module, at least one environmental input including a surface wind magnitude and a surface wind direction, each associated with the VTOL aircraft position [paragraph 95], which is then factored into the state data used in determining the flight plan adjustment factor and ambient condition data described previously).
Regarding Claim 17. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive input identifying a second equipment item as inoperative;
select, based on both the first equipment item and the second equipment item being inoperative, a combined adjustment factor associated with the inoperative status of the first equipment item in conjunction with an inoperative status of the second equipment item; and
calculate the set of engine performance planning metrics based on the combined adjustment factor (The matrix of FIG. 5 shows multiple components that can fail, and is designed to be able to handle a plurality of failure-based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft to the preferred LZ [paragraph 90]).
Regarding Claim 20. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein, to determine the set of engine performance planning metrics, the one or more processors are configured to:
calculate a base power setting;
apply an adjustment factor to the base power setting to generate an adjusted power setting (FIG. 5 describes how the power setting is adjusted in the fifth column); and
determine the set of engine performance planning metrics based on the adjusted power setting (FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 13. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 20.
Krawiec also teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit the adjusted power setting to an Electronic Engine Control (EEC) 128); and
cause the EEC to implement the adjusted power setting during the planned flight (The vehicle health module is capable of monitoring an engine performance input [paragraph 5], and with guidance outputs from the flight director 182, the damage tolerant autopilot 180 or flight control computer (FCC) may provide inner loop flight control to automatically stabilize the VTOL aircraft and follow the guidance commands [paragraph 91], which necessarily means some form of electronic engine control).
Regarding Claim 18. Krawiec teaches a method comprising:
receiving input identifying a first equipment item as inoperative (A vehicle health module may monitor aircraft components, using a variety of methods such as sensor detection, Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, etc., to assess a capability and health of the VTOL aircraft. From these inputs, the vehicle health module 132 may determine if an emergency landing should be performed. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, detection of engine failure causing the controller 120 to command autorotation, and detection of actuation failure causing the controller 120 to perform actuator reconfiguration [paragraph 40]);
based on the input, selecting an adjustment factor associated with an inoperative status of the first equipment item (FIG. 5 shows a failure procedure matrix for an aircraft, such as a VTOL. For example, as shown in FIG. 5, such as loss of thrust in a rotor or a pedal jamming, the controller at 120 may immediately proceed through the steps of selecting the preferred LZ based on each of the plurality of inputs [paragraph 89], and a damage tolerant autopilot may make adjustments to stabilize the VTOL accordingly, also shown in FIG. 5 [paragraph 92]);
calculating a set of engine performance planning metrics for a planned flight based on the adjustment factor and based on ambient condition data associated with a flight path of the planned flight (FIG. 5, paragraph 92); and
determining, based on the set of engine performance planning metrics, a weight penalty, a fuel penalty, or both, for the planned flight (the system for automated VTOL aircraft emergency landing 110 may receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 51]. Here, the controller 120 may receive a continuous data stream from the aircraft state module 130 which may include each state parameter associated with the VTOL aircraft. In addition, the controller 120 may receive, from the state data module, the environmental input including an altitude wind vector associated with the VTOL aircraft altitude, and a surface wind vector, each associated with the VTOL aircraft position. As altitude winds and surface winds may play a part in determining not only the LZ range but also the preferred LZ, a continuous wind update to the controller 120 may enable accurate data for use in calculations. The method may include, at a step 610, continuously determining and updating an LZ range, the LZ range a current glide range of the VTOL aircraft associated with the VTOL aircraft position and based on each of: the at least one aircraft state input, the at least one environmental input, the at least one engine performance input, and the at least one aircraft performance input, and at a step 612, receiving, from a 3D world model onboard the VTOL aircraft, at least one alternate LZ within the LZ range, the at least one alternate LZ a non-airport LZ capable of accepting an emergency landing of the VTOL aircraft [paragraph 90], which means that the state data includes anything from fuel to weight data, and this is used to determine the LZ range to determine how far the VTOL aircraft can travel for a safe emergency landing); wherein
the set of engine performance planning metrics and the weight penalty, the fuel penalty, or both are determined prior to departure of the air craft on the particular planned flight (an example scenario for the VTOL aircraft includes launching from a takeoff airport and planning to fly a planned route to a destination airport [paragraph 74]. The VTOL aircraft can receive, from the state data module 130, the aircraft state input including a VTOL aircraft position, an altitude, a heading, a track, an attitude, an airspeed, a groundspeed, a weight, and a fuel state, each associated with the VTOL aircraft, and can receive this data in a continuous data stream during travel [paragraph 51]. It is implicit from this disclosure that the system receives this state information before the VTOL takes off).
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process.
However, Mallampati teaches:
wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process (Governing administrative bodies such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and others work with aircraft manufacturers to produce a Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for each specific aircraft model. The MMEL provides which inoperative pieces of equipment an aircraft may have and still be airworthy. The philosophy behind MMEL and related Minimum Equipment List (MEL) is to authorize release of flight with inoperative equipment only when the inoperative equipment does not render the aircraft unairworthy for the particular flight to avoid revenue loss to the operator and discomfort to the passengers [paragraph 47]. It’s also indicated by this disclosure that this is federally mandated in most nations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the input is received prior to departure of the aircraft as part of a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) dispatch process as taught by Mallampati, in part because this appears to be mandated by federal law, and to ensure that the aircraft passes necessary safety checks before taking off.
Regarding Claim 19. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the method of claim 18.
Krawiec also teaches:
further comprising:
receiving input identifying a second equipment item as inoperative;
selecting, based on both the first equipment item and the second equipment item being inoperative, a combined adjustment factor associated with the inoperative status of the first equipment item in conjunction with an inoperative status of the second equipment item; and
calculating the set of engine performance planning metrics based on the combined adjustment factor (The matrix of FIG. 5 shows multiple components that can fail, and is designed to be able to handle a plurality of failure-based control inputs to maneuver the VTOL aircraft to the preferred LZ [paragraph 90]).
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) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. US 20220130264 A1 (“Krawiec”) in combination with Mallampati US 20240254894 A1 (“Mallampati”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Poveda US 20230161536 A1 (“Poweda”).
Regarding Claim 3. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec also teaches:
further comprising one or more inputs on a panel of the aircraft, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the input via the one or more inputs (paragraphs 49 and 67).
Krawiec does not explicitly teach:
The inputs are switches (Krawiec does teach that the human operator may interact with the interface of the VTOL using traditional interfaces [paragraph 49], but does not explicitly teach that the traditional interfaces are switches).
However, Poveda teaches:
The inputs are switches (Reversible switches may be selected manually by the pilot to configure the screens, display, and other inputs of the display screen [paragraph 21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with the inputs are switches as taught by Poveda, because this would have been obvious to try. Krawiec already teaches that the interface can use “traditional interfaces”, and there are a limited number of available solutions that fall within the term “traditional interfaces,” while switches are one such solution. For this reason, the claim is obvious under the KSR rational.
Regarding Claim 12. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec also teaches:
further comprising one or more inputs on a panel of the aircraft, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the input via the one or more inputs (paragraphs 49 and 67).
Krawiec does not explicitly teach:
The inputs are switches (Krawiec does teach that the human operator may interact with the interface of the VTOL using traditional interfaces [paragraph 49], but does not explicitly teach that the traditional interfaces are switches).
However, Poveda teaches:
The inputs are switches (Reversible switches may be selected manually by the pilot to configure the screens, display, and other inputs of the display screen [paragraph 21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with the inputs are switches as taught by Poveda, because this would have been obvious to try. Krawiec already teaches that the interface can use “traditional interfaces”, and there are a limited number of available solutions that fall within the term “traditional interfaces,” while switches are one such solution. For this reason, the claim is obvious under the KSR rational.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. US 20220130264 A1 (“Krawiec”) in combination with Mallampati US 20240254894 A1 (“Mallampati”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kershaw et al. US 20230111596 A1 (“Kershaw”).
Regarding Claim 7. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of:
a takeoff weight limitation;
an enroute climb weight limitation; or
a landing weight limitation.
However, Kershaw teaches:
wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of:
a takeoff weight limitation;
an enroute climb weight limitation; or
a landing weight limitation (Describes takeoff weight limitations in paragraph 7, and how a predictive flight envelope protection processor is used to generate a plurality of potential trajectories of the aircraft from the liftoff location based on the energy state [paragraph 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of: a takeoff weight limitation; an enroute climb weight limitation; or a landing weight limitation as taught by Kershaw so as to allow the VTOL to factor in weight issues regarding the VTOL’s ability to take off once it lands in a landing zone. This is particularly important for Krawiec, which is directed primarily towards a military VTOL that would land if needed but might be in a combat zone where taking off again quickly could be a matter of life or death.
Regarding Claim 15. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of:
a takeoff weight limitation;
an enroute climb weight limitation; or
a landing weight limitation.
However, Kershaw teaches:
wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of:
a takeoff weight limitation;
an enroute climb weight limitation; or
a landing weight limitation (Describes takeoff weight limitations in paragraph 7, and how a predictive flight envelope protection processor is used to generate a plurality of potential trajectories of the aircraft from the liftoff location based on the energy state [paragraph 7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the weight penalty comprises at least one of: a takeoff weight limitation; an enroute climb weight limitation; or a landing weight limitation as taught by Kershaw so as to allow the VTOL to factor in weight issues regarding the VTOL’s ability to take off once it lands in a landing zone. This is particularly important for Krawiec, which is directed primarily towards a military VTOL that would land if needed but might be in a combat zone where taking off again quickly could be a matter of life or death.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawiec et al. US 20220130264 A1 (“Krawiec”) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of B. et al. US 20210264798 A1 (“B”).
Regarding Claim 8. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 1.
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of:
a planned fuel requirement; or
a diversion fuel reserve requirement.
However, B teaches:
wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of:
a planned fuel requirement; or
a diversion fuel reserve requirement (Processing system 12 is configured to determine remaining fuel, landing zone requirements (e.g. dimensions) and other attributes for landing the VTOL vehicle 34 based at least partly on aircraft data 62. In this way, a current location of the VTOL vehicle 12 is taken into consideration along with various attributes of the VTOL vehicle 12 (such as fuel, weight, type of failure, maneuverability, etc.) [paragraph 15]. In embodiments, the search radius used by candidate landing zone determination module 48 is dynamically determined depending on the nature of the emergency and/or remaining fuel/charge [paragraph 25]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of: a planned fuel requirement; or a diversion fuel reserve requirement as taught by B so as to allow the VTOL to consider whether it has enough fuel to reach a potential emergency landing zone.
Regarding Claim 16. Krawiec in combination with Mallampati teaches the aircraft of claim 10.
Krawiec does not teach:
wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of:
a planned fuel requirement; or
a diversion fuel reserve requirement.
However, B teaches:
wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of:
a planned fuel requirement; or
a diversion fuel reserve requirement (Processing system 12 is configured to determine remaining fuel, landing zone requirements (e.g. dimensions) and other attributes for landing the VTOL vehicle 34 based at least partly on aircraft data 62. In this way, a current location of the VTOL vehicle 12 is taken into consideration along with various attributes of the VTOL vehicle 12 (such as fuel, weight, type of failure, maneuverability, etc.) [paragraph 15]. In embodiments, the search radius used by candidate landing zone determination module 48 is dynamically determined depending on the nature of the emergency and/or remaining fuel/charge [paragraph 25]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Krawiec with wherein the fuel penalty comprises at least one of: a planned fuel requirement; or a diversion fuel reserve requirement as taught by B so as to allow the VTOL to consider whether it has enough fuel to reach a potential emergency landing zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights