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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final.
Priority
No claimed priority.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05-29-2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Drawings received 05-08-2025 are in condition for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
CLAIM 1 IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of communicating with a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 Recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing route data indicative of a route for a first aircraft to fly within a geographic area, the route comprising a plurality of route segments;
based on the geographic area, accessing data indicative of a plurality of contingency landing locations;
computing a contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the route data and the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations, wherein the contingency landing plan assigns at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment of the plurality of route segments;
accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area;
computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft, the updated contingency landing plan comprising at least one change in the contingency landing locations assigned to the first aircraft for the route; and
transmitting, over a network to a computing device associated with the first aircraft, one or more signals indicative of the updated contingency landing plan.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the first “computing (determination)” in the context of this claim encompasses an operator, pilot, crew, or ground person observing stored data detailing nearby airports, landing strips, etc., and forming a simple judgement based upon determined criteria (e.g., distance, weather, accommodations), and selecting an alternate landing location. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Regarding the second “determination”, the examiner respectfully submits, appears to describe a “triggering” event for implementing the first determination. Or, when the determination is to be applied. The examiner respectfully submits, that it is well within the limitations of the mind to determine a time to implement a predetermined planned at an appropriate time. For example, receiving an indication that a current target destination is no longer available, and determining that an alternate destination is necessary is well within the limitation of the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 Recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
accessing route data indicative of a route for a first aircraft to fly within a geographic area, the route comprising a plurality of route segments;
based on the geographic area, accessing data indicative of a plurality of contingency landing locations;
computing a contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the route data and the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations, wherein the contingency landing plan assigns at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment of the plurality of route segments;
accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area;
computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft, the updated contingency landing plan comprising at least one change in the contingency landing locations assigned to the first aircraft for the route; and
transmitting, over a network to a computing device associated with the first aircraft, one or more signals indicative of the updated contingency landing plan.
Regarding the additional limitations of “accessing”, “based”, “wherein”, “accessing”, “updating”, and “transmitting” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution (pre and post solution) activities that use a computer to perform the sending, receiving, and retrieving process. In particular, accessing stored data and transmitting data is considered data acquisition and transmission, which are forms of pre and post solution activities applied using firmware, hardware, and software. The additional limitations also include rules or step for how the mental determination is to be applied. The vehicle control system is recited at
a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application beyond the limitations of the human mind.
Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle computer to perform the evaluating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution (pre/post) activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of accessing and transmitting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because data acquisition and data transmission is just movement of data using computers, and not considered to be significantly more than the attempt to monopolize an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of transmitting (interpreted as displaying) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, because the claim discloses a determination that can be practically performed within the limitations of the human mind, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements, or contains limitations for “routine customizations” that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond the limitations of the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim 1. Lastly, claims 19-20 are parallel in scope and spirit and are also rejected as patent ineligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101, abstract idea, mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakhla (US 5398186 A) in view of Canoy (US 20170045894 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Nakhla discloses, accessing route data (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 3-5) FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the type of alternate destination data generated by the present invention and displayed on a CDU) indicative of a route (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 32-33) FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an aircraft 10 en route to an intended destination airport 12) for a first aircraft to fly within a geographic area (Nakhla: [FIG. 1, 11("area 1")]; (Col. 3, Ln. 24-28) 11 is a diagram showing how the flight management computer (FMC) system modification of the present invention searches a navigational data base to determine the series of airports nearest an aircraft's present position), the route comprising a plurality of route segments (Nakhla: [Fig. 1]); based on the geographic area, accessing data indicative of a plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS] Each of the alternate landing destinations is displayed with data regarding the distance between the aircraft's present position and each of the alternate destinations, the estimated time of arrival to fly the aircraft to each of the alternate destinations and an estimate of the fuel remaining on board the aircraft if the aircraft were to land at the alternate destinations); computing a contingency landing plan for the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41) the FMC system modification is capable of automatically displaying a list of the nearest alternate destinations from any given point along the original flight plan to the intended destination upon pilot selection; (Col. 11, Ln. 42-51) FIG. 10 is a flow chart of a program 200 according to the present invention for calculating the estimated time of arrival at an alternate landing destination and the amount of fuel remaining upon arrival. The program 200 begins at a start block 202 and proceeds to a block 203 where the current amount of fuel remaining on board is retrieved. After block 203, the program proceeds to a block 204 where the profile to the alternate landing destination from the FMC such as that shown in FIGS. 8 and 9 is determined) based on the route data (Nakhla: [ABS] The data allows the pilot to compare the benefits of landing at one of the alternate destinations versus landing at another. The dam is calculated assuming a direct flight from the aircraft's present position to the alternate as well as assuming a missed approach at the intended destination and a flight from the intended destination to the alternate landing destination; (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41) the FMC system modification is capable of automatically displaying a list of the nearest alternate destinations from any given point along the original flight plan to the intended destination upon pilot selection) and the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS] the distance between the aircraft's present position and each of the alternate destinations), wherein the contingency landing plan assigns at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment of the plurality of route segments (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41) the FMC system modification is capable of automatically displaying a list of the nearest alternate destinations from any given point along the original flight plan to the intended destination upon pilot selection); accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31) Currently, there is no standard practice among airline companies regarding how to provide the pilot of an aircraft with information about alternate landing destinations, if some reason, such as bad weather or an emergency on board, prevents a landing at the intended destination. An approach taken by some airlines is to provide the pilot with a list of alternate destinations before takeoff or during the flight, via data uplink capabilities, if available. Typically the list includes several "en route" destinations that lie between the point of departure and the intended destination, and several "missed approach" destinations that are located near the intended destination. En route destinations are for use when an emergency, such as a severe illness on board the aircraft, requires a deviation from the intended route prior to arriving at the intended destination. Missed approach destinations are for use when the airplane arrives at the intended destination but is prevented from landing for some reason, such as a stalled aircraft on the runway); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31) (above)), the updated contingency landing plan comprising at least one change in the contingency landing locations assigned to the first aircraft for the route (Nakhla: [ABS] a flight management computer modification that provides a pilot of an aircraft with a list of alternate landing destinations at which he can land the aircraft in case of an emergency on board or due to some reason why he cannot land at an intended destination); and transmitting, over a network to a computing device associated with the first aircraft, one or more signals indicative of the updated contingency landing plan (Nakhla: (Col. 6, Ln. 19-28) a pilot can enter a new airport using the alphanumeric keys and scratchpad as described above and pressing key 1L. Upon entering a new alternate landing destination from screen 58, the pilot will be shown an individual screen for the new alternate assuming a direct approach. Finally, the pilot can also change the wind data using key 2R and the trip altitude using key 1R, if the pilot knows that local regulations prohibit flying at the computer determined trip altitude; (Col. 4, Ln. 62 - Col. 5, Ln. 15) the pilot enters the letters KRNO using the alphanumeric character keys 34 on the CDU to signify an airport at Reno, Nev ...).
The examiner respectfully submits that Nakhla discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)).
However, in the alternative and in the same field of endeavor, Canoy discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Canoy: [0115] when a new target landing bay cannot be detected within camera imagery and/or a probability of a collision with another UAV is high (e.g., a calculated collision probability is above safety threshold(s) or indicates a highly likely collision, etc.) with known movement parameters of an automated re-routing routines, the UAV may request a human remote pilot to provide override commands ... and/or target landing bay reassignment data ... where assistance request messages cause other UAVs to move to make way for the UAV, the other UAVs may perform various maneuvers in response, such as taking off to move to a new landing bay, to start a flight plan or mission, to move elsewhere, to hover, etc); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Canoy: [0009] identifying the exception condition based on the continuous real-time sensor data and the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay may include continuously monitoring positions and flight vectors of the plurality of other UAVs ... performing the exception-handling operations based on the identified exception condition may include adjusting the flight plan for landing in the target landing bay in response to determining that the calculated probability of the mid-air collision occurring exceeds a safety threshold; [0034]; [0045] the first UAV 130a and the second UAV 130b may transmit messages to each other indicating current flight plans, movement vectors, positions, altitudes, sensor data, orientations, speeds, landing bay assignments, and/or other operating parameters), for the benefit of enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; for the benefit of supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Nakhla to include reassignment operations and telling everyone to move out of the way taught by Canoy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, accessing contingency event data associated with a predicted landing maneuver of the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 59 - Col. 4, Ln. 3) This data includes the distance to go, estimated time of arrival and fuel remaining if the aircraft were to land at the alternate destination. As more fully described below, this data is computed for both a direct approach route 22 and a missed approach route 24. The direct approach route 22 extends from the aircraft's present position. The missed approach route 24 extends from the last waypoint 19 of the missed approach procedure at the destination airport plus the distance between the present position to the last waypoint of the missed approach procedure. As shown, the last waypoint may be associated with a holding pattern 26; (Col. 6, Ln. 21-24) Upon entering a new alternate landing destination from screen 58, the pilot will be shown an individual screen for the new alternate assuming a direct approach); computing, based on the contingency event data, one or more recommended contingency landing locations of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [Claim 1] searching a navigational database for locations of alternate landing destinations nearest the aircraft's present position, said nearest alternate landing destinations forming said plurality of alternate landing destinations), wherein one or more recommended contingency landing locations are associated with a landing maneuver corresponding to the predicted landing maneuver (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 59 - Col. 4, Ln. 3) This data includes the distance to go, estimated time of arrival and fuel remaining if the aircraft were to land at the alternate destination. As more fully described below, this data is computed for both a direct approach route 22 and a missed approach route 24. The direct approach route 22 extends from the aircraft's present position. The missed approach route 24 extends from the last waypoint 19 of the missed approach procedure at the destination airport plus the distance between the present position to the last waypoint of the missed approach procedure. As shown, the last waypoint may be associated with a holding pattern 26); and transmitting one or more command instructions to the first aircraft to notify an aircraft operator of the one or more recommended contingency landing locations (Nakhla: (Col. 6, Ln. 19-28); (Col. 4, Ln. 62 - Col. 5, Ln. 15)).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the contingency event data is associated with a deviation from at least one route segment (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41) the FMC system modification is capable of automatically displaying a list of the nearest alternate destinations from any given point along the original flight plan to the intended destination upon pilot selection).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2. Further, Canoy also discloses, the first aircraft is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Canoy: [0043] a first landing bay 110a that is currently obstructed or semi-permanently assigned to the second UAV).
In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP - 2144.01). In this case, showcasing the versatile application of teachings previously applied to a fixed-winged aircraft (Nakhla (US 5398186 A)) is well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill in the art and is typically not considered an inventive concept. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges (applications) by routine experimentation (see MPEP routine customization/optimization and routine experimentation). It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP – 2144.05.II.A). Thus, claiming rooftops in the place of runways and VTOL aircraft in the place of fixed-wing aircraft is typically routine customization and not considered inventive or significant improvement (paradigm shifting).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 2. Further, Nakhla also discloses, accessing aircraft data indicative of one or more capabilities of the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 14, Ln. 36-49) Typically, the navigational data base contains the latitude, longitude and elevation of all major airports and landing sites over the territory in which the aircraft is flying. Upon selecting the nearest airports option, the data base is searched in a spiral fashion from a quadrant 1, where the aircraft is presently flying, outwards through quadrants 2, 3, 4 . . . 15 until a predetermined number (e.g., five) of alternate landing destinations have been located. The spiral search will continue outward until the predetermined number of alternate landing destinations have been found or until the radial distance R of the airports located exceeds the distance the aircraft can fly given the current amount of fuel remaining); and computing, based on the one or more capabilities of the first aircraft, the one or more recommended contingency landing locations (Nakhla: (Col. 14, Ln. 36-49) Typically, the navigational data base contains the latitude, longitude and elevation of all major airports and landing sites over the territory in which the aircraft is flying. Upon selecting the nearest airports option, the data base is searched in a spiral fashion from a quadrant 1, where the aircraft is presently flying, outwards through quadrants 2, 3, 4 . . . 15 until a predetermined number (e.g., five) of alternate landing destinations have been located. The spiral search will continue outward until the predetermined number of alternate landing destinations have been found or until the radial distance R of the airports located exceeds the distance the aircraft can fly given the current amount of fuel remaining).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 5. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the capabilities of the first aircraft are associated with a flight range of the first aircraft in response to a contingency event (Nakhla: (Col. 14, Ln. 36-49) Typically, the navigational data base contains the latitude, longitude and elevation of all major airports and landing sites over the territory in which the aircraft is flying. Upon selecting the nearest airports option, the data base is searched in a spiral fashion from a quadrant 1, where the aircraft is presently flying, outwards through quadrants 2, 3, 4 . . . 15 until a predetermined number (e.g., five) of alternate landing destinations have been located. The spiral search will continue outward until the predetermined number of alternate landing destinations have been found or until the radial distance R of the airports located exceeds the distance the aircraft can fly given the current amount of fuel remaining).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the change in flight operations comprises at least one of: (i) a flight delay, (ii) a change in a route of the second aircraft, or (iii) a change in a capacity of at least one respective contingency landing location indicated in the contingency landing plan of the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31) Currently, there is no standard practice among airline companies regarding how to provide the pilot of an aircraft with information about alternate landing destinations, if some reason, such as bad weather or an emergency on board, prevents a landing at the intended destination. An approach taken by some airlines is to provide the pilot with a list of alternate destinations before takeoff or during the flight, via data uplink capabilities, if available. Typically the list includes several "en route" destinations that lie between the point of departure and the intended destination, and several "missed approach" destinations that are located near the intended destination. En route destinations are for use when an emergency, such as a severe illness on board the aircraft, requires a deviation from the intended route prior to arriving at the intended destination. Missed approach destinations are for use when the airplane arrives at the intended destination but is prevented from landing for some reason, such as a stalled aircraft on the runway).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the contingency landing plan is computed prior to take-off (Nakhla: (Col. 4, Ln. 59-61) The selection can be made based on airline-provided information or on the pilot's previously acquired knowledge or knowledge derived from route maps; (Col. 7, Ln. 18-25) When the pilot selects the nearest airports option, any alternate destinations previously entered by the pilot are stored in a memory within the flight management computer. They and all entries made on their respective pages are recalled by pressing the "previous" key 6R. Thus, key 6R is a toggle key that toggles between a nearest airports (NEAREST ARPTS) state and a pilot-entered airports (PREVIOUS) state; (Col. 2, Ln. 15-20) The present invention is a flight management computer (FMC) system modification that provides a pilot with a choice of several alternate landing destinations based on a navigational data base of available landing sites stored in the memory of the FMC).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the plurality of contingency landing locations accommodate at least one of: (i) a vertical landing or (ii) a conventional landing (Nakhla: (Col. 5, Ln. 19-21) information about the weather conditions at the displayed alternate airports be beamed to the aircraft).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the landing maneuver is associated with at least one of: (i) a vertical landing or (ii) a conventional landing (Nakhla: (Col. 5, Ln. 32-40) The fourth screen 56 of FIG. 4 is an example of what is displayed after the pilot has entered five alternate landing destinations using the method described above. The alternate landing destinations entered by the pilot need not be airports; they could comprise waypoints or navigational aids where the pilot knows from experience that a usable landing strip exists. Such landing strips could comprise private airports, military airports or airports).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Canoy also discloses, the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations comprises capacity data (Canoy: [0114] camera imagery including a larger number of landing bays for evaluation to identify open landing bays) indicative of a respective capacity of each of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Canoy: [0114] camera imagery including a larger number of landing bays for evaluation to identify open landing bays).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, accessing location data indicative of a position of the second aircraft within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31) Currently, there is no standard practice among airline companies regarding how to provide the pilot of an aircraft with information about alternate landing destinations, if some reason, such as bad weather or an emergency on board, prevents a landing at the intended destination. An approach taken by some airlines is to provide the pilot with a list of alternate destinations before takeoff or during the flight, via data uplink capabilities, if available. Typically the list includes several "en route" destinations that lie between the point of departure and the intended destination, and several "missed approach" destinations that are located near the intended destination. En route destinations are for use when an emergency, such as a severe illness on board the aircraft, requires a deviation from the intended route prior to arriving at the intended destination. Missed approach destinations are for use when the airplane arrives at the intended destination but is prevented from landing for some reason, such as a stalled aircraft on the runway).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft comprises a route deviation by the second aircraft, and wherein computing the updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft comprises: computing the updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 25-32) En route destinations are for use when an emergency, such as a severe illness on board the aircraft, requires a deviation from the intended route prior to arriving at the intended destination. Missed approach destinations are for use when the airplane arrives at the intended destination but is prevented from landing for some reason, such as a stalled aircraft on the runway) based on the route deviation of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 25-32) En route destinations are for use when an emergency, such as a severe illness on board the aircraft, requires a deviation from the intended route prior to arriving at the intended destination. Missed approach destinations are for use when the airplane arrives at the intended destination but is prevented from landing for some reason, such as a stalled aircraft on the runway).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the route for the first aircraft is a transportation route (Nakhla: (Col. 7, Ln. 32-36) if a passenger on board is having a heart attack, the pilot may choose the alternate destination having the earliest estimated time of arrival. If the pilot is running out of fuel, the pilot will probably choose the airport having the greatest estimated fuel remaining) to transport one or more passengers in response to a transportation request (Nakhla: (Col. 7, Ln. 32-36) if a passenger on board is having a heart attack, the pilot may choose the alternate destination having the earliest estimated time of arrival. If the pilot is running out of fuel, the pilot will probably choose the airport having the greatest estimated fuel remaining).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the plurality of route segments is associated with a path of travel from a first vertiport to a second vertiport (Nakhla: (Col. 5, Ln. 35-38) The alternate landing destinations entered by the pilot need not be airports; they could comprise waypoints or navigational aids where the pilot knows from experience that a usable landing strip exists).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the at least one change in the contingency landing locations is associated with one or more contingency landing locations within a threshold distance from the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 7, Ln. 32-36) if a passenger on board is having a heart attack, the pilot may choose the alternate destination having the earliest estimated time of arrival. If the pilot is running out of fuel, the pilot will probably choose the airport having the greatest estimated fuel remaining; (Col. 7, Ln. 7-26) A "nearest airports" key 6R is also provided on all display pages. Upon selecting this key, the five airports nearest to the aircraft's present position are displayed. More specifically, when the nearest airports key is pressed, a search is performed in the FMC navigational data base to determine the five nearest airports. By default, the choice is made based on a direct route to each airport in the data bases. If desired, the pilot can see the data for each selected airport assuming a missed approach by selecting the individual screens associated with the selected airports and proceed in the manner described above. When the pilot selects the nearest airports option, any alternate destinations previously entered by the pilot are stored in a memory within the flight management computer. They and all entries made on their respective pages are recalled by pressing the "previous" key 6R. Thus, key 6R is a toggle key that toggles between a nearest airports (NEAREST ARPTS) state and a pilot-entered airports (PREVIOUS) state).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, the at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment is a nearest contingency landing location of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: (Col. 7, Ln. 32-36); (Col. 7, Ln. 7-26)).
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Nakhla, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 1. Further, Nakhla also discloses, data indicative of a change in flight operations is accessed from a storage system associated with transportation service (Nakhla: (Col. 4, Ln. 59-61) The selection can be made based on airline-provided information or on the pilot's previously acquired knowledge or knowledge derived from route maps; (Col. 7, Ln. 18-25) When the pilot selects the nearest airports option, any alternate destinations previously entered by the pilot are stored in a memory within the flight management computer. They and all entries made on their respective pages are recalled by pressing the "previous" key 6R. Thus, key 6R is a toggle key that toggles between a nearest airports (NEAREST ARPTS) state and a pilot-entered airports (PREVIOUS) state; (Col. 2, Ln. 15-20) The present invention is a flight management computer (FMC) system modification that provides a pilot with a choice of several alternate landing destinations based on a navigational data base of available landing sites stored in the memory of the FMC).
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Nakhla discloses, accessing route data (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 3-5)) indicative of a route (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 32-33)) for a first aircraft to fly within a geographic area (Nakhla: [FIG. 1, 11("area 1")]; (Col. 3, Ln. 24-28)), the route comprising a plurality of route segments (Nakhla: [Fig. 1]); based on the geographic area, accessing data indicative of a plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS]); computing a contingency landing plan for the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41); (Col. 11, Ln. 42-51)) based on the route data (Nakhla: [ABS]; (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41)) and the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS]), wherein the contingency landing plan assigns at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment of the plurality of route segments (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41)); accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)), the updated contingency landing plan comprising at least one change in the contingency landing locations assigned to the first aircraft for the route (Nakhla: [ABS]); and transmitting, over a network to a computing device associated with the first aircraft, one or more signals indicative of the updated contingency landing plan (Nakhla: (Col. 6, Ln. 19-28); (Col. 4, Ln. 62 - Col. 5, Ln. 15)).
The examiner respectfully submits that Nakhla discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)).
However, in the alternative and in the same field of endeavor, Canoy discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Canoy: [0115]); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Canoy: [0009]; [0034]; [0045]), for the benefit of enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; for the benefit of supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Nakhla to include reassignment operations and telling everyone to move out of the way taught by Canoy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Nakhla discloses, accessing route data (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 3-5)) indicative of a route (Nakhla: (Col. 3, Ln. 32-33)) for a first aircraft to fly within a geographic area (Nakhla: [FIG. 1, 11("area 1")]; (Col. 3, Ln. 24-28)), the route comprising a plurality of route segments (Nakhla: [Fig. 1]); based on the geographic area, accessing data indicative of a plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS]); computing a contingency landing plan for the first aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41); (Col. 11, Ln. 42-51)) based on the route data (Nakhla: [ABS]; (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41)) and the data indicative of the plurality of contingency landing locations (Nakhla: [ABS]), wherein the contingency landing plan assigns at least one respective contingency landing location to each route segment of the plurality of route segments (Nakhla: (Col. 2, Ln. 38-41)); accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)), the updated contingency landing plan comprising at least one change in the contingency landing locations assigned to the first aircraft for the route (Nakhla: [ABS]); and transmitting, over a network to a computing device associated with the first aircraft, one or more signals indicative of the updated contingency landing plan (Nakhla: (Col. 6, Ln. 19-28); (Col. 4, Ln. 62 - Col. 5, Ln. 15)).
The examiner respectfully submits that Nakhla discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Nakhla: (Col. 1, Ln. 13-31)).
However, in the alternative and in the same field of endeavor, Canoy discloses, accessing data indicative of a change in flight operations of a second aircraft that is in-flight within the geographic area (Canoy: [0115]); computing an updated contingency landing plan for the first aircraft based on the change in the flight operations of the second aircraft (Canoy: [0009]; [0034]; [0045]), for the benefit of enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; for the benefit of supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Nakhla to include reassignment operations and telling everyone to move out of the way taught by Canoy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enabling a simplistic touchdown procedure for a densely populated flight zone; supporting robust exception-detection and exception-handling routines at UAVs to account for emergency or unexpected conditions and provide support needed for safety and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Verma (US 20250006062 A1)
Ma (US 20170197710 A1)
Evans (US 20180229859 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights