DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 6/30/2026. Claims 1-8, 11-15, 17-18 and 21-24 are pending.
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 statements submitted on 4/3/2026 and 6/30/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 16, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the nested lists of recitations has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to claims 1, 8 and 15 has been withdrawn.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “magnitude of each maneuver” when read in light of the specification (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification uses the term in paragraphs 42, 53, 77, 85 and 89, however, none of these paragraphs provide a definition for what the magnitude of a maneuver measures. Paragraph 53 further discloses maneuvers with reduced magnitudes and routes with fewer high magnitude maneuvers, which indicates that the magnitudes can be compared, but does not define what they measure. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the term “maneuver magnitude” is a recognized term that is repeatedly used in literature involving aircraft (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner performed searches for the term in US and foreign patent literature databases, and in non-patent literature using GOOGLE Scholar. The magnitude of a maneuver appears to be most commonly associated with the delta-v needed to change a spacecraft’s speed or direction, see, for example, Cheetham (US 2012/0248253) and Belbruno (US 6,385,512). Patera et al. (US 2004/0024528) calculate a maneuver magnitude for both aircraft and spacecraft that is explicitly defined as a maneuver velocity vector that most effectively lowers the collision probability to below a maneuver threshold. Ben-Asher et al. (US 2010/0163621) disclose calculating a UAV maneuver magnitude by multiplying a maneuver direction with a load factor. Although the term “maneuver magnitude” appears sporadically in literature, primarily related to spacecraft maneuvers, there does not appear to be consensus on a specific, precise meaning for the term as applied to aircraft maneuvers. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the paper titled “A Model of Unmanned Aircraft Pilot Detect and Avoid Maneuver Decisions” provides a clear definite meaning for the term “magnitude of each maneuver” (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 17), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The citation provided by the Applicant does not define the term maneuver magnitude, but merely discloses it is a subfunction of maneuver selection. Page 31 of said paper discloses the final subfunction of the model is selection of magnitude of the maneuver—the specific heading or altitude desired. It is unclear if the specific heading or altitude desired are intended to specifically define the magnitude of the maneuver or are merely exemplary. It is further unclear how these definitions are consistent with the usage in paragraph 53 of the Applicant’s specification. For example, the meaning of a route with fewer high desired headings or altitudes is unclear. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Oldach does not disclose determining whether one or more characteristics of the ownship vehicle indicate that the ownship vehicle has the capability to pass through the respective weather formation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 19), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oldach discloses, in paragraph 25, the weather severity is classified in view of aircraft capability. Oldach further discloses, in paragraphs 23 and 26-27, that the weather avoidance function calculates a weather avoidance aircraft maneuver based on severity of individual weather cells in order to avoid weather that has the potential for damaging the aircraft or causing the aircraft to crash. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Oldach does not disclose at least one of the plurality of possible alternative routes causes the ownship vehicle to avoid the one or more impassible weather formations and travel through at least one passible weather formation (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 19-20), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Oldach discloses, in figure 1 and paragraphs 30-32, alternative routes plotted against weather severity patterns, wherein the alternate routes pass through a mild weather event and several moderate weather events, while avoiding passing through any severe weather events. Oldach additionally discloses marking a route as risky or undesirable because weather changes are likely to cause the route to pass through a severe event. See rejection below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Replacement paragraph [0004] appears to be misnumbered as [0001].
In paragraphs 42, 53, 78, 85 and 89, it is unclear what the magnitude of a maneuver measures.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 15 and 23 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 claims 8, 15 and 23, lines 9, 9 and 6, respectively, the limitation “a magnitude of each maneuver” renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear what the magnitude of a maneuver measures. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim, the written description must clearly define the claim term and set forth any uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so define that claim term. The magnitude of a maneuver is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the magnitude of a maneuver can be any measurable value or quantity related to a maneuver.
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.
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, 7, 11-13, 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2017/0038457), hereinafter Wang, in view of Oldach (US 2016/0232796).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 17, Wang discloses an aircraft avionics system of an ownship vehicle, the aircraft avionics system comprising: communications circuitry; one or more weather sensors of a weather radar system; a user interface (UT); and processing circuitry (Wang; para. 67: onboard aircraft system such as a flight management system (FMS) (not shown in FIG. 6) may predict or track a planned trajectory for aircraft 10, may output the information on that planned trajectory to radar display device 300, and may process weather radar data from onboard weather radar system) configured to: receive, via the one or more weather sensors, a first set of information indicating one or more first characteristics of one or more weather formations along a planned route of the ownship vehicle (Wang; para. 72: weather radar system 12 identifying an obscured region 196 of low or no data behind convective weather cell 92 in a set of weather radar data generated by the reception of its own reflected weather radar signals from own aircraft); receive, via the communications circuitry, a second set of information from one or more other vehicles, wherein the second set of information indicate one or more second characteristics of the one or more weather formations, the one or more second characteristics being different from the one or more first characteristics, wherein the one or more second characteristics are not detectable by the one or more sensors (Wang; para. 73: weather radar system 12 onboard aircraft 10 receiving, from weather data integrating system 100, a supplemental weather data set output 242 including supplemental weather data set 296N covering identified obscured region); generate a plurality of possible alternate routes for the ownship vehicle (Wang; para. 67: Weather radar graphical display device 300 may also show currently suggested trajectories including heading and altitude for the own aircraft 10.), each of the plurality of possible alternate routes being defined by one or more maneuvers to cause the ownship vehicle to avoid one or more impassible weather formations of the own or more weather formations, and wherein at least one of the plurality of possible alternative routes causes the ownship vehicle to avoid the one or more impassible weather formations; and present, on a weather radar display of the UI, at least one alternate route of the plurality of alternate routes and the one or more maneuvers corresponding to the at least one alternate route to an operator of the ownship vehicle (Wang; para. 69: The FMS may thus determine and project onto weather radar display device 300 a new recommended trajectory 304, 305 (horizontal and vertical components, respectively) on which the own aircraft 10 would alter heading and climb to a higher altitude, which would enable keeping to volumes of clear weather rather than flying into the turbulence of convective weather cell 96 previously hidden by convective weather cell 92.).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is configured to determine, for each of the one or more weather formations and based on the one or more first characteristics of the one or more weather formations and the one or more second characteristics of the one or more weather formations, whether one or more characteristics of the ownship vehicle indicate that the ownship vehicle has a capability to pass through the respective weather formation; and at least one of the plurality of possible alternative routes causes the ownship vehicle to travel through at least one passible weather formation.
Oldach, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft hazard avoidance), discloses processing circuitry is configured to determine, for each of one or more weather formations (Oldach; para. 31: As shown in FIG. 1, the largest oval 110 can represent an area where there is some mild weather event, the middle sized ovals 120 can represent areas where there is a moderate weather event, and the smallest ovals 130 can represent areas where there is a severe weather event.) and based on one or more first characteristics of the one or more weather formations (Oldach; para. 20: The weather avoidance system may be hosted in/on a platform that may integrate sensor data from active and/or passive sensors. Examples of active sensors include, for example, radar, electro-optical (EO) sensors, infrared (IR) sensors, and the like. Other sensors such as barometric pressure sensors are also permitted.) and one or more second characteristics of the one or more weather formations (Oldach; para. 20: The system may be integrated with weather data from external sources, such as satellite weather, Next-Generation Radar, ground based radar/Doppler weather radar, or other ground based weather products.), whether one or more characteristics of an ownship vehicle indicate that the ownship vehicle has a capability to pass through the respective weather formation (Oldach; para. 25: The Weather Avoidance function may also detect the weather severity and classify the severity in view of aircraft capability. This severity detection and classification may be the basis for determining what actions the aircraft and/or ground pilot may take to avoid the weather.); and at least one of a plurality of possible alternative routes causes the ownship vehicle to travel through at least one passible weather formation (Oldach; fig. 1: Route A passes through mild weather event 110 and moderate weather event 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, for each convective weather cell, the flight management system of Wang, to determine if the aircraft is capable of passing through each weather event, and select from potential routes that pass through weather events the aircraft is capable of passing through, as disclosed by Oldach, to yield the predictable result of not diverting around weather the aircraft may safely fly through.
Regarding claims 2, 12 and 18, Wang, as modified, discloses to receive the second set of information from the one or more other vehicles, the processing circuitry is configured to: determine, based on the first set of information, an absence of the one or more second characteristics of the weather formation (Wang; para. 72: Method 700 further includes identifying a region having insufficient data in the own weather radar data set (e.g., weather radar system 12 identifying an obscured region 196 of low or no data behind convective weather cell 92 in a set of weather radar data generated by the reception of its own reflected weather radar signals from own aircraft 10, where the radar signal reflections from convective weather cell 92 are of sufficient strength to saturate the gain of the receiver subsystem of weather radar system 12 onboard aircraft 10) (704).), and based on the determination of the absence of the one or more second characteristics, transmit, via the communications circuitry, a request for the second set of information specifically corresponding to the one or more second characteristics to the one or more other vehicles (Wang; para. 72: Method 700 further includes transmitting, to a weather data integrating system, a request for supplemental weather data covering the identified region (e.g., weather radar system 12 onboard aircraft 10 transmitting a request to weather data integrating system 100, via datalink communication channels such as those provided by telecommunication satellite 30, for supplemental weather data covering the identified region 196, where the request may include parameters identifying the volume of airspace obscured by the saturated gain front the high radar reflection of convective weather cell 92) (706).).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 21, Wang, as modified, discloses each characteristic of the one or more first characteristics and the one or more second characteristics comprises one of: a position of the weather formation; a size of the weather formation; a type of the weather formation; a path of travel of the weather formation (Wang; para. 26: onboard weather radar system 12 may detect the horizontal motions of convective weather cells 92, 94 Over time, such as in terms of radial horizontal motions (toward and away front aircraft 10) and tangential horizontal motions (side-to-side from the perspective of aircraft 10), which onboard weather radar system 12 may also detect in terms of or translate into north-south and east-west components of horizontal motion); a travel speed of the weather formation; or an altitude of the weather formation.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, as modified, discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine each of the plurality of alternate routes independent of a path of travel of each vehicle of the one or more other vehicles (Wang; para. 67: Weather radar graphical display device 300 may also show currently suggested trajectories including heading and altitude for the own aircraft 10.; para. 69: The FMS may thus determine and project onto weather radar display device 300 a new recommended trajectory 304, 305 (horizontal and vertical components, respectively) on which the own aircraft 10 would alter heading and climb to a higher altitude, which would enable keeping to volumes of clear weather rather than flying into the turbulence of convective weather cell 96 previously hidden by convective weather cell 92.; fig. 6: new proposed aircraft trajectory 304 is independent of initial proposed aircraft trajectory 302).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Oldach as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Bunch (US 2009/0219197).
Regarding claim 3, Wang, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Although Wang, in paragraph 19, discloses characterizing the weather proximate to the aircraft and that the other aircraft may be within tens or hundreds of miles, and Wang clearly discloses in figure 1 that the aircraft are within a range of a weather formation, it is unclear if Wang, as modified, explicitly discloses each vehicle of the one or more other vehicles is within a threshold range of the weather formation.
However, Bunch, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft weather displays), discloses each vehicle of one or more vehicles is within a threshold range of a weather formation (Bunch; paras. 34-35: aircraft 106 and the aircraft 108 are within the range 202 of the on-board radar system of the aircraft 102 … aircraft 204 is outside of the radar range 202 of aircraft 102. Accordingly, any supplemental weather information provided by the aircraft 204 will not be relevant to the pilots of aircraft 102. Accordingly, weather information from the aircraft 204 would not by displayed on the on-board cockpit radar display of aircraft 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the weather radar display device of Wang, as modified, to only display weather data received from another aircraft when both the other aircraft and the weather formation are within its radar range, as disclosed by Bunch, with the motivation of only displaying weather information that is relevant to the pilot of the aircraft (Bunch; para. 35).
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Wang, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Wang, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is configured to receive the second set of information directly from the one or more other vehicles.
Bunch discloses processing circuitry is configured to receive a supplemental set of information directly from one or more other vehicles (Bunch; para. 34: supplemental weather information may be received … from the aircraft 106 and/or the aircraft 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the supplemental weather data received by the weather radar system of Wang, as modified, to be received directly from other aircraft, as disclosed by Bunch, to yield the predictable result of reducing the latency of the received supplemental weather information.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 14-15 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Oldach as applied to claims 1, 11 and 17 above, and further in view of Nathan et al. (US 2021/0020049), hereinafter Nathan.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 24, Wang, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose the one or more characteristics of the ownship vehicle comprises one or more of: a size of the ownship vehicle; a wingspan of the ownship vehicle; a type of the ownship vehicle; a type of one or more engines of the ownship vehicle; or an indication of one or more certifications of the ownship vehicle for a specific weather condition.
Nathan, in the same field of endeavor (flight path optimization), discloses one or more characteristics of an ownship vehicle comprises one or more of: a size of the ownship vehicle (Nathan; para. 42: The safe distance may be determined based on (e.g., a mathematical function of) one or a combination of factors, which may include characteristics of the airplane and characteristics of the zone of avoidance. Characteristics of the airplane may include the size, weight, and payload of the airplane.); a wingspan of the ownship vehicle; a type of the ownship vehicle; a type of one or more engines of the ownship vehicle; or an indication of one or more certifications of the ownship vehicle for a specific weather condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the proposed aircraft trajectory determined in the FMS of Wang, as modified, to account for the size, weight, and payload of the airplane when determining the alternate flight path, as disclosed by Nathan, with the motivation of finding an alternate flight path that is both safe and economical (Nathan; para. 22).
Regarding claims 8, 15 and 23, as best understood, Wang, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Wang, as modified, does not appear to explicitly disclose the selecting the at least one alternate route from the plurality of alternate routes based on one or more of: a number of maneuvers for each alternate route of the plurality of alternate routes, a magnitude of each maneuver of the number of maneuvers, or an amount of fuel expenditure for each alternate route of the plurality of alternate routes.
Nathan discloses selecting an alternate route from a plurality of alternate routes based on one or more of: a number of maneuvers for each alternate route of the plurality of alternate routes, a magnitude of each maneuver of a number of maneuvers, or an amount of fuel expenditure for each alternate route of the plurality of alternate routes (Nathan; para. 73: The process of selecting the optimal alternate flight path may be performed by a cost-optimization process based on one or a plurality of factors, such as the (estimated) fuel expenditure and flight time required by each of the plurality of alternate flight paths.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the flight management system of Wang, as modified, to select from a plurality of alternate flight paths in order to optimize fuel expenditure, to yield the predictable result of minimizing the cost of the alternate flight path.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights