DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 03/26/2025 is being acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, 26 and 28-30 have been amended. Claims 4-5, 7-8, 14, 20-25, and 31-49 have been cancelled. Claims 50-57 have been added.
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application No. 19/115,287 and preliminary amendment, filed on 03/26/2025. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 15-19, 26-30, and 50-57 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 15-19, 26-30, and 50-57 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 04/30/2026 and 05/17/2025 have been acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 52, and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 52 recite “adjusting a targeted glide slope of the aircraft in accordance with an updating indication of one or both of (a) corrections by a pilot to the targeted glide slope and (b) modifications by the pilot to said landing site”. The claims are written so that (a) and (b) are two alternative options. However, the claim later uses language that would imply that both (a) and (b) are both required (“adjusting automatically a ratio of the speeds to correspond with descent of the aircraft along the targeted glide slope as the targeted glide slope is adjusted and said landing site is modified; and maintaining the ratio of the speeds in correspondence with the targeted glide slope and modified landing site while automatically reducing the forward speed from an initiating speed to a terminating speed”). This should be fixed for clarity.
In claim 1, “A method of automatic control of aircraft forward speed and descent speed during descent of the aircraft to a landing site” should be changed to “A method of automatic control of aircraft forward speed and descent speed during descent of an aircraft to a landing site”
In claim 55, “a display presenting a pilot of the aircraft a view of in which a landing area reached upon reaching stationary speeds is viewed during descent and the speeds reduction” is grammatically confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 13, 15-17, 19, 50, and 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 3698669).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a method of automatic control of aircraft forward speed and descent speed during descent of the aircraft (column 1 line 14, “vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”) to a landing site (column 2 line 53, "The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted"), the method comprising:
adjusting a targeted glide slope of the aircraft in accordance with an updating indication of one or both of (a) corrections by a pilot to the targeted glide slope (column 2 line 57, "The pilot selects the desired flight path angle, and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle") and (b) modifications by the pilot to said landing site;
adjusting automatically a ratio of the speeds to correspond with descent of the aircraft along the targeted glide slope as the targeted glide slope is adjusted and said landing site is modified (column 5 line 14, "vertical control signal 72 and horizontal speed error signal 62 are respectively used to control aircraft vertical and horizontal speed so that the instantaneous aircraft speed vector maintains the desired flight path angle");
and maintaining the ratio of the speeds in correspondence with the targeted glide slope and modified landing site (column 1 line 62, "commanding an aircraft to maintain a selected flight path angle"—the angle is maintained so the ratio of speeds are maintained; see Fig. 2) while automatically reducing the forward speed from an initiating speed to a terminating speed (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover"; column 4 line 25, deceleration speed schedule);
wherein the initiating speed and terminating speed are different by at least half of the initiating speed of the aircraft (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover"—the aircraft is controlled to come to a hover over the landing site, therefore the speed would be reduced to zero).
Regarding claim 3, Miller teaches the method of claim 2. Miller further teaches wherein the terminating speed is stationary (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover").
Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the terminating speed is less than 2 m/s (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover").
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches the method of claim 13. Miller further teaches the terminating height and terminating speed are reached at a position over the landing site (column 2 line 53, "The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted”).
Regarding claim 16, Miller teaches the method of claim 15. Miller further teaches hovering the aircraft at the position over the landing site (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover"; column 2 line 53, "The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted”).
Regarding claim 17, Miller teaches method of claim 1. Miller further teaches a time course of the updating indication of corrections includes: a first phase in which the corrections result in modification of the targeted glide slope until a course of the aircraft descending along the targeted glide slope is aimed at the landing site (column 2 line 57, “The pilot selects the desired flight path angle…”); and a second phase, following the first phase, in which the corrections maintain the course of the aircraft aimed at the landing site and descending along the targeted glide slope (column 2 line 58, “…and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle”).
Regarding claim 19, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the pilot communicates the updating indication of corrections by adjusting an axis of a flight controller (column 3 line 20, "The apparatus and method of this invention is adapted for use in combination with the collective and pitch cyclic controls of VTOL-V/STOL aircraft").
Regarding claim 50, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the aircraft comprises a computerized flight control system configured to maintain a fixed ratio between forward and vertical speeds of the aircraft (column 1 line 62, "commanding an aircraft to maintain a selected flight path angle"—the angle is maintained so the ratio of speeds are maintained”) while reducing both speeds toward stationary landing speeds as a function of the height above the ground (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover").
Regarding claim 52, Miller teaches a vertically landing aircraft (column 1 line 14, “vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”) having a computerized flight control system (abstract and Fig. 1, flight command system) wherein the computerized flight control system is configured to:
adjust a targeted glide slope of the aircraft in accordance with an updating indication of one or both of (a) corrections by a pilot to the targeted glide slope (column 2 line 57, "The pilot selects the desired flight path angle, and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle") and (b) modifications by the pilot to a landing site;
automatically adjust a ratio of a forward speed to a descent speed to correspond with a descent of the aircraft along the targeted glide slope as the targeted glide slope is adjusted and said landing site is modified (column 5 line 14, "vertical control signal 72 and horizontal speed error signal 62 are respectively used to control aircraft vertical and horizontal speed so that the instantaneous aircraft speed vector maintains the desired flight path angle");
and maintain the ratio of the speeds in correspondence with the targeted glide slope and modified landing site (column 1 line 62, "commanding an aircraft to maintain a selected flight path angle"—the angle is maintained so the ratio of speeds are maintained; see Fig. 2) while automatically reducing the forward speed from an initiating speed to a terminating speed (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover"; column 4 line 25, deceleration speed schedule), wherein the initiating speed and terminating speed are different by at least half of the initiating speed of the aircraft (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover"—the aircraft is controlled to come to a hover over the landing site, therefore the speed would be reduced to zero).
Regarding claim 53, Miller teaches the vertically landing aircraft of claim 52. Miller further teaches the computerized flight control system configured to maintain a fixed ratio between forward and vertical speeds of the aircraft (column 1 line 62, "commanding an aircraft to maintain a selected flight path angle"—the angle is maintained so the ratio of speeds are maintained”), while reducing both speeds toward stationary landing speeds as a function of the height above the ground (column 6 line 47, "flight path angle control for VTOL or V/STOL aircraft is continuously maintained from cruise speeds to hover").
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Autechaud (GB 1184349).
Regarding claim 2, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the terminating speed is less than 10% of the initiating speed of the aircraft and wherein the initiating speed is at least 80% of a design cruise speed of the aircraft (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft).
Autechaud further teaches the initiating speed is at least 80% of a design cruise speed of the aircraft (pg. 1 lines 63-74; pg. 2 lines 125-130; pg. 3 lines 1-7). Autechaud teaches methods to improve automatic piloting systems during transition flight, and would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation.
Regarding claim 6, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the aircraft descends from an initiating height to a terminating height while slowing from the initiating speed to the terminating speed, and the ratio of the initiating height to the terminating height is within a factor of three of the ratio of the initiating speed and the terminating speed (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft).
Autechaud further teaches the ratio of the initiating height to the terminating height is within a factor of three of the ratio of the initiating speed and the terminating speed (pg. 1 lines 63-74; pg. 2 lines 125-130; pg. 3 lines 1-7). Autechaud teaches methods to improve automatic piloting systems during transition flight, and would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation.
Regarding claim 9, Miller teaches the method of claim 6. Miller further teaches as a function of height, deceleration of forward speed includes decreasing deceleration for at least 10% of the difference between the initiating height and the terminating height (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft).
Autechaud further teaches as a function of height, deceleration of forward speed includes decreasing deceleration for at least 10% of the difference between the initiating height and the terminating height (pg. 1 lines 63-74; pg. 2 lines 125-130; pg. 3 lines 1-7). Autechaud teaches methods to improve automatic piloting systems during transition flight, and would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation.
Regarding claim 10, Miller teaches the method of claim 6. Miller further teaches as a function of height, forward speed decreases linearly on average for at least 90% of the difference between the initiating height and the terminating height (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft).
Autechaud further teaches as a function of height, forward speed decreases linearly on average for at least 90% of the difference between the initiating height and the terminating height (pg. 1 lines 63-74; pg. 2 lines 125-130; pg. 3 lines 1-7). Autechaud teaches methods to improve automatic piloting systems during transition flight, and would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Sheheta (US 20150142211).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches the method of claim 6. Miller further teaches the terminating height is vertically within 2 meters of the landing site (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft).
Sheheta further teaches the terminating height is vertically within 2 meters of the landing site (par. 104, "if the vehicle is in Hover position (meaning at Hover height, which is a pre-determined height from the ground, usually 1 to 2 meters), the vehicle initiates its landing procedure"). Sheheta teaches methods for controlling UAVs, and that hovering is usually 1 to 2 meters. Sheheta would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Zhang (US 20230341875 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Miller teaches the method of claim 10. Miller fails to teach the terminating height is vertically within 0.5 meters of the landing site. Miller instead only teaches that the aircraft terminating height is a hover height over a landing site (column 1 line 14, “The system is particularly useful for controlling the flight path angle of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) and vertical/short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft”—the method relates to landing the aircraft)
However, Zhang teaches the terminating height is vertically within 0.5 meters of the landing site (par. 195, "After entering the automatic landing, the unmanned aerial vehicle may descend vertically at a constant speed, hover at a place 0.3 meters above the ground and trigger a second-stage landing"). Zhang teaches a method for controlling UAVs and that a hover height before landing can be within 0.5 meters of the landing site. Sheheta would be an obvious place to look for improvements and for standards in aviation, and it could be reasonably predicted that using Zhang’s terminating height would lead to success.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Ishihara (US 20170124886).
Regarding claim 18, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches a time course of the updating indication of corrections includes: a first phase in which the corrections result in modification of the targeted glide slope until a course of the aircraft descending along the targeted glide slope is aimed at a location away from the landing site (column 2 line 57, “The pilot selects the desired flight path angle…”); and a second phase in which the corrections adjust the course of the aircraft toward the landing site along an adjusted value of the targeted glide slope.
Although Miller does not explicitly teach a second phase in which the corrections adjust the course of the aircraft toward the landing site along an adjusted value of the targeted glide slope, it would be obvious that if an incorrect glide slope is selected and is aimed away from the landing site, the pilot should realize the mistake and correct the glide slope.
Ishihara teaches identifying a false glideslope capture event (claim 9) so that the pilot can be notified and correct the glideslope path of the aircraft. It is obvious that if the aircraft is on the wrong path to reach the landing site, then the pilot will correct the path.
Claim(s) 26-29 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Kiel (US 2015130644).
Regarding claim 26, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller fails to teach the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site, at an angle declined by 10° or more from the horizontal. Miller does not specify if the pilot is looking through a chin bubble to make their corrections.
However, Kiel teaches the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site (claim 5, “the illuminated area of the landing zone is approximately equal in size and shape to the field of view of a pilot or crew member looking through a chin bubble or a side door or window of the aircraft”), at an angle declined by 10° or more from the horizontal (par. 65, "Measuring from the approximate pilot's eye position, the viewing angle ranges are found to be approximately 42-49° down and approximately 18-22° outward"; see Fig. 9).
Chin bubbles are already well-known in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Kiel, as chin bubbles can make it easier for the pilot to see while landing .
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Miller and Kiel teaches the method of claim 26. Miller fails to teach the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site, at an angle declined by 30° or more from the horizontal.
However, Kiel teaches the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site, at an angle declined by 30° or more from the horizontal (par. 65, "Measuring from the approximate pilot's eye position, the viewing angle ranges are found to be approximately 42-49° down and approximately 18-22° outward"; see Fig. 9).
Chin bubbles are already well-known in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Kiel, as chin bubbles can make it easier for the pilot to see while landing .
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Miller in view of Kiel teaches the method of claim 26. Miller fails to teach the direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site is through a window portion positioned below waist level of the pilot within the aircraft.
However, Kiel teaches the direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site is through a window portion positioned below waist level of the pilot within the aircraft (par. 65, "Measuring from the approximate pilot's eye position, the viewing angle ranges are found to be approximately 42-49° down and approximately 18-22° outward"; see Fig. 9).
Chin bubbles are already well-known in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Kiel, as chin bubbles can make it easier for the pilot to see while landing .
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Miller in view of Kiel teaches the method of claim 26. Miller fails to teach the direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site is through a window portion positioned adjacent, from the viewing perspective of the pilot, to a footrest for the pilot.
However, Kiel teaches the direct view by the pilot of the position of the landing site is through a window portion positioned adjacent, from the viewing perspective of the pilot, to a footrest for the pilot (par. 25, "FIG. 10A shows the surface visible through the chin bubble").
Chin bubbles are already well-known in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Kiel, as chin bubbles can make it easier for the pilot to see while landing .
Regarding claim 54, Miller teaches the vertically landing aircraft of claim 53. Miller fails to teach a transparent window oriented to face downward toward the ground from the perspective of an upright-seated pilot of the aircraft, and through which a landing area reached upon reaching stationary speeds is viewed during descent and the speeds reduction.
However, Kiel teaches to teach a transparent window oriented to face downward toward the ground from the perspective of an upright-seated pilot of the aircraft (see Fig. 9), and through which a landing area reached upon reaching stationary speeds is viewed during descent and the speeds reduction (claim 5, “the illuminated area of the landing zone is approximately equal in size and shape to the field of view of a pilot or crew member looking through a chin bubble or a side door or window of the aircraft”). Miller does not specify if the pilot is looking through a chin bubble to make their corrections.
Chin bubbles are already well-known in the art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Kiel, as chin bubbles can make it easier for the pilot to see while landing .
Claim(s) 30 and 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Covington (US 20140081484 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller fails to teach the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a camera view of the landing site, at an angle declined by 30° or more from the horizontal.
However, Covington teaches the updating indication of corrections is determined by the pilot according to a camera view of the landing site, at an angle declined by 30° or more from the horizontal (Fig. 4A-4B imaging system 310 pointed downwards).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Covington in order to “assist a pilot during takeoff and landing of an aircraft. A technical advantage of one embodiment may include the capability to improve the situational awareness of the environment below an aircraft during takeoff” (par. 4).
Regarding claim 55, Miller teaches the vertically landing aircraft of claim 53.
Miller fails to teach a camera oriented to face downward toward the ground; and a display presenting a pilot of the aircraft a view of in which a landing area reached upon reaching stationary speeds is viewed during descent and the speeds reduction.
However, Covington teaches a camera oriented to face downward toward the ground (Fig. 4A-4B imaging system 310 pointed downwards); and a display (Fig. 5A-5B, display device 350) presenting a pilot of the aircraft a view of in which a landing area reached upon reaching stationary speeds is viewed during descent and the speeds reduction (par. 50, “In FIG. 5A, display 350 renders a supplemented visual representation of the environment under rotorcraft 100 using images from the fixed camera of FIG. 4A”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miller to incorporate the teachings of Covington in order to “assist a pilot during takeoff and landing of an aircraft. A technical advantage of one embodiment may include the capability to improve the situational awareness of the environment below an aircraft during takeoff” (par. 4).
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Burcham (US 5330131).
Regarding claim 51, Miller teaches the method of claim 1. Miller further teaches the adjusting the targeted glide slope comprises adjusting the landing site by a control stick (column 2 line 53, “The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted. The pilot selects the desired flight path angle, and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle”).
Although a control stick is not explicitly stated as the means the pilot selects the desired flight path angle, a control stick would be the most obvious method to implement selecting a flight path angle. An example of this is seen in Burcham (claim 2, "the flight path input means comprises at least one of a control stick, a pitch axis thumbwheel, and an instrument landing system receiver"). A control stick would be an obvious option and would predictably allow the pilot to select a desired flight path angle.
Claim(s) 56-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Covington as applied above, and further in view of Burcham.
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Miller in view of Covington teaches the vertically landing aircraft of claim 55. Miller further teaches a control stick, wherein the fixed ratio defines a position of a target landing area, and the fixed ratio is selected according to adjustments by the control stick movements (column 2 line 53, “The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted. The pilot selects the desired flight path angle, and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle”).
Although a control stick is not explicitly stated as the means the pilot selects the desired flight path angle, a control stick would be the most obvious method to implement selecting a flight path angle. An example of this is seen in Burcham (claim 2, "the flight path input means comprises at least one of a control stick, a pitch axis thumbwheel, and an instrument landing system receiver"). A control stick would be an obvious option and would predictably allow the pilot to select a desired flight path angle.
Selecting a desired flight path angle would implicitly select the target landing area, since a change in the angle will change the landing area.
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Miller in view of Covington teaches the vertically landing aircraft of claim 56. Miller further teaches the target landing area is adjustable by altering an angle of descent in response to the control stick movements, the altering comprising replacing the fixed ratio with a ratio corresponding to the altered angle of descent (column 2 line 53, “The flight path control provided by the apparatus and method of this invention is preferably used to guide an aircraft accurately from cruise flight conditions to the terminal area where the glideslope beam is intercepted. The pilot selects the desired flight path angle, and the resulting speed command signals are used for continuously maintaining the aircraft on the desired angle”).
Although a control stick is not explicitly stated as the means the pilot selects the desired flight path angle, a control stick would be the most obvious method to implement selecting a flight path angle. An example of this is seen in Burcham (claim 2, "the flight path input means comprises at least one of a control stick, a pitch axis thumbwheel, and an instrument landing system receiver"). A control stick would be an obvious option and would predictably allow the pilot to select a desired flight path angle.
Selecting a desired flight path angle would implicitly select the target landing area, since a change in the angle will change the landing area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights