DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-20 as originally presented and filed on 04/07/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is April 9, 2024 (20240409).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of, and priority to, U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/631,651 filed on April 9, 2024 (20240409).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 11/18/2025 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Applicant is advise to review para [0106] of the specification as filed on 04/07/2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because "The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention" and "It should avoid using phrases which can be implied" such as the recited limitations “IN SOME ASPECTS…”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230215278 A1 to Kanagarajan; Sivakumar et al. (hereinafter Kanagarajan cited in the IDS) in view of US 20160179327 A1 to ZAMMIT-MANGION; David et al. (ZAMMIT).
Regarding claim 1 Kanagarajan teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
630
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
767
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
592
529
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
488
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts a method comprising:
receiving audio data indicating one or more flight commands for an aircraft and from an air traffic control system (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would have seen reviewing the figures above and for example only, there appears to be a method 400 EXPRESSLY shown in fig. 6
PNG
media_image5.png
149
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
receiving audio as claimed in for example step 410 as explained in for example para:
“[0054] The method 400 includes step 410 of receiving voice reports 164 (e.g. ATIS, METAR and/or NOTAM reports) and ATC broadcast messages 124, 125 between the flight crew and the ATC. In step 420, the processing system 160 transcribes the voice reports 164 and the ATC broadcast messages 124, 125 to provide one or more text reports 162 and ATC text messages 154. The transcription can take place using the same voice to text transcription application 102 or different voice to text transcription applications 102.”);
converting the audio data into text data indicating the one or more flight commands (given the BRI connotes step 420 in fig. 6
PNG
media_image6.png
78
509
media_image6.png
Greyscale
as explained in para [0054] above);
analyzing the text data to determine the one or more flight commands (given the BRI connotes step 430 in fig. 6
PNG
media_image7.png
106
559
media_image7.png
Greyscale
as explained in para:
“[0055] In step 430, relevant report data 130 is extracted from the text report 162 based on flight context. The flight context can include location of the aircraft 10 including flight phase and proximity to a take-off or landing runway. The flight context can be derived from an analysis of the ATC text messages 154, particularly any clearance information. The flight context can be derived from a currently active flight plan as described in active flight plan data 158.”);
providing for display on a screen the determined one or more flight commands (given the BRI connotes Fig. 7 Display system 508 and step 430 in fig. 6:
“[0058] In exemplary embodiments, the display device 502 is realized as an electronic display capable of graphically displaying flight information or other data associated with operation of the aircraft 520 under control of the display system 508 and/or processing system 506. In this regard, the display device 502 is coupled to the display system 508 and the processing system 506, wherein the processing system 506 and the display system 508 are cooperatively configured to display, render, or otherwise convey one or more graphical representations or images associated with operation of the aircraft 520 on the display device 502. The user input device 504 is coupled to the processing system 506, and the user input device 504 and the processing system 506 are cooperatively configured to allow a user (e.g., a pilot, co-pilot, or crew member) to interact with the display device 502 and/or other elements of the system 500, as described herein. Depending on the embodiment, the user input device(s) 504 may be realized as a keypad, touchpad, keyboard, mouse, touch panel (or touchscreen), joystick, knob, line select key or another suitable device adapted to receive input from a user. In some embodiments, the user input device 504 includes or is realized as an audio input device, such as a microphone, audio transducer, audio sensor, or the like, that is adapted to allow a user to provide audio input to the system 500 in a “hands free” manner without requiring the user to move his or her hands, eyes and/or head to interact with the system 500.”);
PNG
media_image8.png
91
538
media_image8.png
Greyscale
receiving a confirmation signal of the displayed one or more flight commands (given the BRI it appears to connote either item 155 in figs. 2 and 3 as described in for example only para [0056] “ the selectable update element 208, that can be selected to update the flight plan (by submission to the FMS 118), in step 460, with the relevant report data 130 when selected by the flight crew.)
PNG
media_image9.png
320
489
media_image9.png
Greyscale
“[0056] In step 440, an ATC transcription window 206 is generated by the processing system 160, which includes the ATC text messages 154 directed to/from the ownship aircraft 10. The ATC transcription window 206 is augmented so as to include at least some of the relevant report data 130. Further, the ATC transcription window may include a UI element, namely the selectable update element 208, that can be selected to update the flight plan (by submission to the FMS 118), in step 460, with the relevant report data 130 when selected by the flight crew. In step 450, the text report 162 that has been transcribed by the processing system 160 is displayed in another window with highlighted parts 304 showing data items that have been determined to be relevant to flight context (e.g. based on an active flight plan and ATC conversation) and which are different from corresponding data items in the active flight plan.”);
modifying a flight plan of the aircraft so the aircraft complies with the confirmed one or more flight commands (given the BRI connotes items 208 and 460 as shown and explained above); and
transmitting flight control instructions corresponding to the modified flight plan to a control system of the aircraft (given the BRI is shown in fig. 6 step 460 as described in for example para [0056] above wherein a POSITA understood that a FMS (flight Management System) connotes the claimed “control system”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
While it appears that Kanagarajan teaches the invention as claimed and explained above, Kanagarajan does not appear to expressly disclose transmitting flight control instructions corresponding to the modified flight plan to a control system of the aircraft such that the aircraft is controlled according to the modified flight plan as set forth in the specification as filed.
In analogous art ZAMMIT teaches in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image10.png
572
601
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
649
541
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
304
555
media_image12.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts transmitting flight control instructions corresponding to the modified flight plan to a control system of the aircraft (that was made by a verbal command as explained in for example para:
“[0091] Various entries may also be commanded by voice via the microphone (217) and or the headset (218). For example, the pilot (200) may set the aircraft speed to 240 kts by saying verbally ‘REDUCE SPEED TWO-FORTY KNOTS’, whereby the Device (216) will carry out the action equivalent to that command as if it were entered via the keypad (55). Similarly, the pilot (200) may command ‘LEFT HEADING TWO-SEVEN-ZERO’ to command a left turn onto heading 270°. It is understood that all entries on the Device (216) can be made via direct voice entry. In a present example embodiment, the pilot (200) presses the PTT button (220) to turn on the microphone (217, 218) before giving a voice command.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the verbal commands disclosed in ZAMMIT with the verbal commands taught in Kanagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “Advantageously, allowed the pilot (200) to enter values verbally rather than manually” as taught by ZAMMIT Para(s):
“[0110] In a further feature of the present embodiments, direct voice entry values may be displayed on the appropriate areas of the Touch Screen Display Unit (201) in accordance with the disclosed embodiments. Advantageously, this allows the pilot (200) to enter values verbally rather than manually on, for example but not limited to, the keypad (55).”.
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the modified flight plan (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference wherein it is understood that the “autopilot” disclosed in Fig. 3 of ZAMMIT would have “Advantageously, allowed the pilot (200) to enter values verbally rather than manually.” Based on the modified flight plan determined by Kanagarajan. For evidence of what a POSITA understands please review ZAMMIT para:
“[0120] In each of the example embodiments presented above, the pilot (200) may also be able to interact with aircraft systems using voice communication. For instance, the pilot (200) may use verbal commands to select target values for the autopilot or to select a particular radio frequency. Similarly, the Device (216) may use aural annunciations (such as aural messages or alert chimes) in order to communicate with the pilot (200). For example, an aural alert message may be generated if a system fault occurs. The aural alerts may also be coupled with visual popup alerts. It is understood that the generation of aural alerts may be handled by one of the Aircraft Avionics Systems (214) and not necessarily reside within the Device (216). For example, it may be part of an overall crew alerting system on board the aircraft.”)).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the text data to determine the one or more flight commands comprises:
comparing the text data with potential flight commands stored in a command database,
wherein the potential flight commands in the command database are common instructions issued from the air traffic control system (see Kanagarajan Fig. 1, items 160, 102, 104, 144, 106, etc., and associated paragraphs); and
determining the one or more flight commands indicated in the text data based on the comparison (see the teachings of ZAMMIT in see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the method of claim 3, wherein comparing the text data with the potential flight commands comprises:
determining similarity scores for the potential flight commands,
wherein a similarity score for a potential flight command indicates the similarity between the text data and the potential flight command;
and determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores (given the BRI while the references do not expressly disclose or use the words/limitations “similarity scores” both references do expressly teach deciphering verbal commands that would sound similar to flight commands, as such in order to determine what commands the pilot is actually verbalizing it is considered that a POSITA would understand that there is some manner of determining which verbal commands are similar to and therefor matches and is determined to be what the pilot is verbally commanding. See for example Kanagarajan para:
“[0039] The ATC broadcast messages 124, 125 (which include both received and transmitted ATC broadcast messages 124, 125 by/from the aircraft 10) and the voice reports 164 can be passed to the voice to text transcription application 102 for conversion from a voice format to a text format. The voice to text transcription application 102 can use any suitable technique for performing conversion from voice to text. The voice to text transcription application 102 may use artificial intelligence (e.g. a recurrent neural network) that transcribes analog or digital aviation audio into text in near-real time. The artificial intelligence application is trained with an aviation specific dataset allowing the voice to text transcription application 102 to perform better than general natural language processing applications, which can provide inaccurate transcriptions due to cadence, noise, and vocabulary of the aviation industry. In some embodiments, separate voice to text transcription applications 102 may be provided for the voice reports 164 and the ATC broadcast messages 124, 125 so that the respective voice to text transcription applications 102 can be optimally configured for the different lexicons and voice styles of the voice reports 164 and the ATC broadcast messages 124, 125.”).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the method of claim 4, wherein determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores comprises selecting a potential flight command with the highest similarity score (given the BRI it is considered that in the conversion of voice to text that the highest similarity to commands would be used. See for example Kanagarajan para:
“[0006] In one aspect, a method is provided of converting voice to text messages in an aircraft. The method includes transcribing, using a first voice to text application, voice messages between a member of the flight crew and Air Traffic Control (ATC) to provide ATC text messages, transcribing, using a second voice to text application, a voice-automatic terminal information service report (voice-ATIS) to provide an ATIS text report, determining, via a processor, flight context data based at least on an analysis of the ATC text messages, determining, via the processor, relevant ATIS data from the ATIS text report using the flight context data, and rendering, via the processor, a visual User Interface (UI) including at least some of the ATC text messages and at least some of the relevant ATIS data on the same ATC transcription page.”).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the method of claim 4, wherein determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores comprises:
selecting a potential flight command with a similarity score above a predetermined similarity threshold (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 2 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing for display on the screen or another screen the modified flight plan;
receiving a confirmation signal of the modified flight plan; and
determining the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the modified flight plan (given the BRI see the teachings of Kanagarajan figs. 2 and 3 item 208 combined with the obviousness teachings of ZAMMIT).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing for display on the screen or another screen the modified flight plan;
receiving a correction signal for the modified flight plan;
modifying the flight plan according to the correction signal to generate a second modified flight plan;
providing for display on the screen or another screen the second modified flight plan;
receiving a confirmation signal of the second modified flight plan; and
determining the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the second modified flight plan (given the BRI see the teachings of Kanagarajan figs. 2 and 3 items 208 and 210 combined with the obviousness teachings of ZAMMIT wherein it is understood that upon selection of cancelling the update element that a second modified flight plan must be generated in order to complete the flight.).
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the text data to determine the one or more flight commands comprises:
applying the text data to a machine learned model configured to determine the one or more flight commands (given the BRI it is considered that the methods used to decipher the verbal commands is performed by a machine learned model configured to match the frequencies of the human voice to those that match words that match commands that an autopilot of an airplane can use to follow the verbal commands of a pilot).
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
receive audio data indicating one or more flight commands for an aircraft and from an air traffic control system;
convert the audio data into text data indicating the one or more flight commands;
analyze the text data to determine the one or more flight commands;
provide for display on a screen the determined one or more flight commands;
receive a confirmation signal of the displayed one or more flight commands;
modify a flight plan of the aircraft so the aircraft complies with the confirmed one or more flight commands; and
transmit flight control instructions corresponding to the modified flight plan to a control system of the aircraft (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference and especially Kanagarajan para:
“[0059] The processing system 506 generally represents the hardware, software, and/or firmware components configured to facilitate communications and/or interaction between the elements of the aircraft system 500 and perform additional tasks and/or functions to support the system 100 of FIG. 1 during operation of the aircraft system 500, as described herein. Depending on the embodiment, the processing system 506 may be implemented or realized with a general-purpose processor, a content addressable memory, a digital signal processor, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, any suitable programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, processing core, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof, designed to perform the functions described herein. The processing system 506 may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a plurality of processing cores, a combination of a digital signal processor and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a digital signal processor core, or any other such configuration. In practice, the processing system 506 includes processing logic that may be configured to carry out the functions, techniques, and processing tasks associated with the operation of the aircraft system 500, as described herein. Furthermore, the steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be embodied directly in hardware, in firmware, in a software module executed by the processing system 506, or in any practical combination thereof. For example, in one or more embodiments, the processing system 506 includes or otherwise accesses a data storage element 518 (or memory), which may be realized as any sort of non-transitory short- or long-term storage media capable of storing programming instructions for execution by the processing system 506. The code or other computer-executable programming instructions, when read and executed by the processing system 506, cause the processing system 506 to support or otherwise perform certain tasks, operations, and/or functions described herein in the context of the flight rules alerts. Depending on the embodiment, the data storage element 518 may be physically realized using RAM memory, ROM memory, flash memory, registers, a hard disk, or another suitable data storage medium known in the art or any suitable combination thereof.”).
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to determine the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the modified flight plan (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 2 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions to analyze the text data to determine the one or more flight commands further cause the computing system to:
compare the text data with potential flight commands stored in a command database,
wherein the potential flight commands in the command database are common instructions issued from the air traffic control system; and
determine the one or more flight commands indicated in the text data based on the comparison (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 3 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the instructions to compare the text data with the potential flight commands further cause the computing system to:
determine similarity scores for the potential flight commands, wherein a similarity score for a potential flight command indicates the similarity between the text data and the potential flight command; and
determine the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 4 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein to determine the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores comprises selecting a potential flight command with the highest similarity score (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 5 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions to determine the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores further cause the computing system to select a potential flight command with a similarity score above a predetermined similarity threshold (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 6 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 16 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to:
provide for display on the screen or another screen the modified flight plan;
receive a confirmation signal of the modified flight plan; and
determine the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the modified flight plan (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 8 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 17 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to:
provide for display on the screen or another screen the modified flight plan;
receive a correction signal for the modified flight plan;
modify the flight plan according to the correction signal to generate a second modified flight plan;
provide for display on the screen or another screen the second modified flight plan;
receive a confirmation signal of the second modified flight plan; and
determine the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the second modified flight plan (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 8 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 18 and the limitation the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions to analyze the text data to determine the one or more flight commands further cause the computing system to:
apply the text data to a machine learned model configured to determine the one or more flight commands (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 9 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 19 and the limitation a system comprising:
a set of one or more processors; and
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the set of one or more processors, causes the set of one or more processors to:
receive audio data indicating one or more flight commands for an aircraft and from an air traffic control system;
convert the audio data into text data indicating the one or more flight commands;
analyze the text data to determine the one or more flight commands;
provide for display on a screen the determined one or more flight commands;
receive a confirmation signal of the displayed one or more flight commands;
modify a flight plan of the aircraft so the aircraft complies with the confirmed one or more flight commands; and
transmit flight control instructions corresponding to the modified flight plan to a control system of the aircraft (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 20 and the limitation the system of claim 19, wherein the instructions further cause the set of one or more processors to determine the flight control instructions to control the aircraft according to the modified flight plan (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 2 above incorporated herein by reference).
Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230215278 A1 to Kanagarajan; Sivakumar et al. (hereinafter Kanagarajan cited in the IDS) in view of US 20160179327 A1 to ZAMMIT-MANGION; David et al. (ZAMMIT) as applied to claims above in view of US 20220130261 A1 to ZHONG; Yi et al. (hereinafter Zhong).
Regarding claims 4 and 13 while it is considered that given the BRI the combination of Kanagarajan teaches the invention as claimed and explained above, further resort may be had to the teachings of Zhong to show that a POSITA would have found the limitations wherein comparing the text data with the potential flight commands comprises:
determining similarity scores for the potential flight commands,
wherein a similarity score for a potential flight command indicates the similarity between the text data and the potential flight command;
and determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores (to be an obvious manner of deciphering verbal commands in determining flight commands as explained in for example para:
“[0072] In some embodiments, the event prediction system 510 includes one or more machine learning applications based on predetermined preferences. In some implementations, output(s) from one or more of the included machine learning applications may become input(s) for different one or more of the machine learning applications to arrive at inference or prediction results. Additionally, one or more of the included machine learning applications may, for example, have streaming analytics capability along with down sampling of data. The prediction engine may, for example, use machine learning applications trained on a training set (e.g., historical flight data and past SOP violations or other contexts) in order to analyze parameters correlated with certain contexts, generate a score for contexts representing a similarity to a given context, and select one or more parameters associated with contexts over a threshold score. In some implementations, the prediction system may analyze prior predictions to train the machine learning applications (e.g., using one or more big data techniques) and determine predictions of violations of SOPs which are required for specific contexts, or data predicted to be necessary. In another embodiment, the machine learning application may be trained with historical flight data (for example Quick Access Record (QAR)), operational flight plan, contextual data such as weather and traffic during the flight. To compute the trajectory of the aircraft as part of the JDMS, one or more of current weather, traffic, and other data collected by the prediction system may be run through the processed model to identify probabilities of events and required actions.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the machine learning disclosed in Zhong with the method taught in the combination of Kanagarajan with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “averted anomalies before they occur” as taught by Zhong Para(s):
“[0011] Although dispatchers have access to large sets of information, including radar information, weather forecasts, ACARS reports, etc., due to time constraints, they are often limited to near term decision making and in most cases are acting reactively based on events that have already occurred (e.g., engine out, violation of standard operating procedure, changed weather conditions in the vicinity of the aircraft, etc.). In such time-constrained scenarios, there is a significant workload increase for the crew and dispatcher, and decisions are made based on rule-of-thumb, which in many cases result in efficiencies or sub-optimal outcomes. There is no mechanism or technology for automatically anticipating events or anomalies during flight ahead of time, such that dispatchers and pilots can make informed decisions for averting anomalies before they occur.”.
Regarding claims 5 and 14 and the limitation, wherein determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores comprises selecting a potential flight command with the highest similarity score (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claims 6 and 15 and the limitation, wherein determining the one or more flight commands based on the similarity scores comprises:
selecting a potential flight command with a similarity score above a predetermined similarity threshold (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 and the limitations wherein analyzing the text data to determine the one or more flight commands comprises:
applying the text data to a machine learned model configured to determine the one or more flight commands (see the teachings of (see the obviousness to combine and the rejection of corresponding parts of claims 4, 5, 13 and 14 above incorporated herein by reference and especially Zhong para:
“[0037] A proposed technical solution for the aforementioned problems is a Joint Decision-Making System (JDMS) that augments all the data sources and provides a consistent visualization to both the pilot and the dispatcher. Based on an event trigger condition (which in some embodiments may be automatically detected), information is simultaneously and automatically exchanged between the aircraft and ground (dispatcher) via a medium such as, but not limited to, ACARS or SATCOM (in some embodiments, automatically in the background without a need for pilot or dispatcher action), ensuring that both the on-board and ground applications work from the same data sources, including sources both onboard the aircraft and external to the aircraft. An exemplary technical solution to the aforementioned problems presented herein includes a dispatcher-crew shared graphical visualization of aircraft state, planned profile, forecast weather or traffic data, and other relevant information. Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for a vehicle operator or pilot engine and a dispatcher engine further incorporate a chat window for negotiation or data exchange between crew, dispatcher and a Tail-specific performance data computer. In some embodiments, the proposed solution further includes a dispatcher event prediction system that evaluates the Aircraft 4D trajectory data for standard operating procedures violations, weather/traffic disruptions and route speed and cruise altitude restrictions. The system provides a model to induce real-time restrictions like traffic congestions and holds at destination, and computes the potential impact against the safety of the flight. This system may provide recommendations to mitigate the event based on standard procedures, and may also provide alternate airport diversions visible to both the dispatcher and the pilot on the GUIs of their respective engines. In some embodiments, a machine learning engine may be implemented for generating predictions. For example, a managed machine may be trained to automatically detect potential operation procedures based on a training data set comprising prior flight data, and determining a likelihood of a future violation of a standard operating procedure based on whether a predetermined threshold is met.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of voice control at the time of the invention. For example:
US 20100030401 A1 to Rogers; William et al. teaches, inter alia FLIGHT DECK COMMUNICATION AND DISPLAY SYSTEM in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A flight deck communication and display system (100) for displaying a modified flight plan transmitted to an aircraft (224) is described including a processor (104) adapted to receive (i) data representative of a current aircraft flight plan (218, 228) and (ii) a textual message representative of the modified flight plan (218', 228') and operable, in response thereto, to supply a flight plan display command, and a modified flight plan display command, and comparing the textual clearance message with factors affecting aircraft safety to supply an alert message display command (204). A display (108) coupled to receive the flight plan display command, the modified flight plan display command, the alert message display command is operable, in response thereto, to substantially simultaneously display (308) (i) an image representative of the current aircraft flight plan, (ii) the textual clearance message, (iii) the modified flight plan, and (iv) an alert message indicating whether there are any safety concerns related to the textual air traffic modified flight plan.”.
US 8515763 B2 to Dong; Xian Qin et al. teaches, inter alia Methods and systems for utilizing voice commands onboard an aircraft in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Methods and systems are provided for utilizing audio commands onboard an aircraft. A method comprises identifying a flight phase for the aircraft, resulting in an identified flight phase, receiving an audio input, resulting in received audio input, filtering the received audio input in a manner that is influenced by the identified flight phase for the aircraft, resulting in filtered audio input, and validating the filtered audio input as a first voice command of a first plurality of possible voice commands.”.
US 20120078445 A1 to Krupansky; Petr et al. teaches, inter alia COMPUTER ASSISTED HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE DISPLAY in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Methods and apparatus are provided for selectively balancing pilot workload. The apparatus comprises a display device configured to display a user interface (UI) and a processor. The processor is configured to determine a state of the pilot and/or a state of the aircraft, prepare modification to the UI based in part on the state of the pilot and/or the state of the aircraft such that the modification adds one or more command icons without obscuring, without removing, and without replacing any information item on the display, and to execute the modification.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST) or via email at DanielL.GreeneJr@USPTO.GOV under the guidance of MPEP Section 502.03 Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email) [R-07.2022]. The written authorization may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms and submitted via EFS-Web, mail, or fax. The Examiner’s Fax number is 571-273-6876.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260626
Prosecution Insights