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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on June 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed June 25, 2026 have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and the prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-14, filed June 25, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, & 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2018/0012503 A1, to Roger et al., in view of US 2025/0265933 A1, to Nie et al., hereafter Nie.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-14, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0012503 A1, to Roger et al., in view of US 2025/0265933 A1, to Nie et al., hereafter Nie.
Regarding Claim 1, Roger discloses A method comprising: generating a vehicle navigation prediction model of a vehicle based at least in part on vehicle configuration data (Roger [0090]-[0091], Examiner Note: Roger discloses taking into account the flight management system as a function of the predicted navigation of the aircraft);
identifying vehicle operational data, wherein the vehicle operational data is representative of operations of the vehicle when the vehicle is operating (Roger [0095]-[0097], Examiner Note: Roger discloses collecting data such as GPS, departure and arrival procedures, and engine parameters (i.e. vehicle operational data for determining navigation performance prediction data);
generating, based at least in part on applying the vehicle operational data to the vehicle navigation prediction model, navigational performance prediction data (Roger [0104], Examiner Note: Roger discloses using the data to create a series of segments which is known as the estimated navigation performance prediction); and
controlling actuation of a component of the vehicle based at least in part on the navigational performance prediction data, wherein the controlling the actuation of the component of the vehicle includes at least one of (i) resetting a navigation sensor, (Roger [0101] & [0132], Examiner Note: Roger discloses inertial navigational systems as well as the inertial systems being able to reset themselves based on drift between the aircraft position and the inertial system).
However, Roger does not specifically disclose or (ii) actuating a flight management system (FMS) to adjust a heading of the vehicle.
Nie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches or (ii) actuating a flight management system (FMS) to adjust a heading of the vehicle (Nie [0105], Examiner Note: Nie teaches the FMS planning the flight’s trajectory based on the predicted flight conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for calculating the prediction of required navigation performance for a trajectory of Roger with the FMS system of Nie in order to ensure operational efficiency (Nie [0004])
Regarding Claim 4, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 4 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Roger in view of Nie further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle navigation prediction model is generated by a mobile vehicle navigation support apparatus (Roger [0101], Examiner Note: Roger discloses the computer being used is an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) (i.e. mobile vehicle navigation support apparatus).
Regarding Claim 6, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 6 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, Roger in view of Nie teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle navigation prediction model is generated by an onboard vehicle navigation support apparatus (Roger discloses the an onboard computer which calculates the trajectory of the aircraft).
Regarding Claim 8, as shown above, Roger in view of Nie The method of claim 1,.
However, the modification does not specifically disclose wherein the vehicle navigation prediction model is generated by a remote vehicle navigation support apparatus.
Nie teaches wherein the vehicle navigation prediction model is generated by a remote vehicle navigation support apparatus (Nie [0139], Examiner Note: Nie discloses an external system (e.g. remote server), which performs the method 500 of trajectory that a vehicle is to make).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for calculating the prediction of required navigation performance for a trajectory of Roger in view of Nie with the remote server of Nie in order to reduce processing power required on-board the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 10, Roger in view of Nie teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle operational data comprises avionics data and external data (Roger [0095]-[0097], Examiner Note: Roger discloses collecting data such as GPS (i.e. external data), departure and arrival procedures and engine parameters (i.e. avionics data).
Regarding Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 10, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 10. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, Roger in view of Nie teaches The method of claim 1, wherein initiating performance of one or more navigational prediction actions comprises: generating a navigational prediction interface component (Roger [0089] & Fig. 7 & 8, Examiner Note: Roger discloses displaying (i.e. navigational prediction actions) the navigation performance data using waypoints (i.e. navigational prediction interface component)).
Regarding Claim 13, Roger in view of Nie teaches The method of claim 12, wherein the navigational prediction interface component comprises one or more predicted navigational adherence visualizations, wherein each of the one or more predicted navigational adherence visualizations is associated with a corresponding physical location (Roger [0088] & Fig. 5-8, Examiner Note: Roger discloses a display of the path as well as the width of the corridor in which the vehicle may travel (i.e. navigational adherence visualizations) and where Nm corresponds to nautical miles (i.e. physical location) from the designated path)
Regarding Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 1 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Roger further discloses …at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory (Roger [0049])…
Regarding Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 4. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5 & 6, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 5 & 6. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5 & 6.
Regarding Claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 12 & 13 and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 12 & 13. Therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 12 & 13.
Regarding Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 14, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 14. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 14.
Claims 2-3, 9, & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0012503 A1, to Roger et al., hereafter Roger in view of US 2025/0265933 A1, to Nie et al., hereafter Nie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0072965 A1, to Zhang et al., hereafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, as shown above, Roger in view of Nie teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
However, the modification does not specifically teach training the vehicle navigation prediction model based at least in part on vehicle navigation historical data.
Zhang, directed to the same problem, teaches training the vehicle navigation prediction model based at least in part on vehicle navigation historical data (Zhang [0044]-[0045], Zhang discloses using historical information in order to train a prediction-based trajectory system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for calculating the prediction of required navigation performance for a trajectory of Roger in view of Nie with the training system of Zhang in order to effectively control an autonomous vehicle in traffic (Zhang [0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, However, Roger in view of Nie and further in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 2,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein training the vehicle navigation prediction model occurs when the vehicle is offline.
Zhang further teaches wherein training the vehicle navigation prediction model occurs when the vehicle is offline (Zhang [0045], Examiner Note: Zhang discloses capability of an offline training phase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the method for calculating the prediction of required navigation performance for a trajectory of Roger in view of Nie and further in view of Zhang with the training system of Zhang in order to effectively control an autonomous vehicle in traffic (Zhang [0044]).
Regarding Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 2, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 2. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations in view of claim 3. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights