DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 07/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 07/08/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson et al. (US 20140142787 A1; hereinafter Tillotson) in view of Tidhar (US 20170311174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tillotson discloses:
An aircraft (Fig. 1: UAV 10) comprising:
a communication system (Fig. 1: Rx 32 and Tx 34) configured to communicate with a ground control station while the aircraft is in transit (Fig. 5: step 122, [0062] communicate with the operator);
a flight control system (Fig. 1: control computer 22) configured to control the aircraft while the aircraft is in transit (Fig. 5: step 102, [0058] execute nominal mission);
one or more memory components (Fig. 2: memory 23) configured to store a flight plan (Fig. 5: step 102, [0058] nominal mission), contingency data ([0044] a list of physically reachable landing sites), and instructions configured, when executed by a processor (Fig. 2: processor 21)([0028] “Block 21 represents a processor that executes instructions or operations on one or more hardware or software components of the control computer 22”), to:
communicate, via the communication system, with the ground control station (Fig. 5: step 122, [0062] communicate with the operator); detect a degradation in a communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 5: step 122 “No”, [0062] cannot communicate with the operator);
route the aircraft back to a previously known location in which the communication link was not degraded between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 5: step 126, [0062] reverse course until communication is restored); and
control, using the flight control system, the aircraft to approach at an updated landing site based on a current location of the aircraft (Fig. 5: step 116, [0060] “it may propose a new waypoint near the next waypoint (step 116) and then return to step 102. The controller is programmed to propose a waypoint that will allow the UAV to satisfy constraints while moving in the desired direction.”).
Tillotson does not specifically disclose:
attempt, based on detecting the degradation in the communication link, to improve the communication link by at least one of switching to a second communication system or restarting the communication system.
However, Tidhar teaches:
attempt, based on detecting the degradation in the communication link, to improve the communication link by at least one of switching to a second communication system or restarting the communication system ([0124] “at block 240 if it is determined that communication loss has occurred or is anticipated, instructions to switch between antennas are generated (e.g. by antenna switching controller 38)”).
Tillotson and Tidhar are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft communication to further incorporate Tidhar’s aircraft communication for the advantage of switching antennas which results in prevention in communication loss (Tidhar’s [0124]).
Regarding claim 11, Tillotson discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 2: memory 23) comprising a flight plan (Fig. 5: step 102, [0058] nominal mission), contingency data ([0044] a list of physically reachable landing sites), and computer-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processing units (Fig. 2: processor 21)([0028] “Block 21 represents a processor that executes instructions or operations on one or more hardware or software components of the control computer 22”) of an aircraft (Fig. 1: UAV 10) to:
communicate, via a communication system (Fig. 1: Rx 32 and Tx 34), with a ground control station via a communication link (Fig. 5: step 122, [0062] communicate with the operator);
detect a degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 5: step 122 “No”, [0062] cannot communicate with the operator);
route the aircraft back to a previously known location in which the communication link was not degraded between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 5: step 126, [0062] reverse course until communication is restored); and
control, using a flight control system, the aircraft to approach an updated landing site based on a current location of the aircraft (Fig. 5: step 116, [0060] “it may propose a new waypoint near the next waypoint (step 116) and then return to step 102. The controller is programmed to propose a waypoint that will allow the UAV to satisfy constraints while moving in the desired direction.”).
Tillotson does not specifically disclose:
attempt, based on the degradation in the communication link, to improve the communication link by at least one of switching to a second communication system or restarting a communication system.
However, Tidhar teaches:
attempt, based on the degradation in the communication link, to improve the communication link by at least one of switching to a second communication system or restarting a communication system ([0124] “at block 240 if it is determined that communication loss has occurred or is anticipated, instructions to switch between antennas are generated (e.g. by antenna switching controller 38)”).
Tillotson and Tidhar are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft communication to further incorporate Tidhar’s aircraft communication for the advantage of switching antennas which results in prevention in communication loss (Tidhar’s [0124]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson in view of Tidhar and in view of Hiebl (US 20170092137 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 1 but fails to teach:
wherein the flight plan and the contingency data is received from the ground control station via the communication system prior to takeoff from an origin airport.
However, Hiebl discloses:
wherein the flight plan and the contingency data is received from the ground control station via the communication system prior to takeoff from an origin airport ([0014] update the navigation system and the stored landing sites before the unmanned aerial vehicle takes off).
Tillotson and Hiebl are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft contingency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft contingency to further incorporate Hiebl’s aircraft contingency for the advantage of loading landing sites before take off which results in accessibility to all the updated landing sites for carrying out a safety landing (Hiebl’s [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 11 but fails to teach:
wherein the flight plan and the contingency data is received from the ground control station at the aircraft prior to takeoff from an origin airport.
However, Hiebl discloses:
wherein the flight plan and the contingency data is received from the ground control station at the aircraft prior to takeoff from an origin airport ([0014] update the navigation system and the stored landing sites before the unmanned aerial vehicle takes off).
Tillotson and Hiebl are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft contingency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft contingency to further incorporate Hiebl’s aircraft contingency for the advantage of loading landing sites before take off which results in accessibility to all the updated landing sites for carrying out a safety landing (Hiebl’s [0013]-[0014]).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, in view of Tidhar and in view of Spinelli (US 20120221175 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 1 but fails to teach:
wherein the communication system is configured to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data in response to detecting a lost communication scenario associated with the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station, wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
However, Spinelli discloses:
wherein the communication system is configured to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data in response to detecting a lost communication scenario associated with the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 3: block 310, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost), wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code (Fig. 3: block 310, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost) and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
Tillotson and Spinelli are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Spinelli’s aircraft control for the advantage of broadcasting a transponder code and notifying ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Spinelli’s [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 3. Spinelli further teaches:
wherein the flight control system is configured to transmit the lost communication notice for a threshold period of time prior to approach and landing at a lost communication landing site (Fig. 3: blocks 310 & 340, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost, then UAV 110 takes a course of action, to fly to a specific location, return to its starting location, leave restricted airspace), and wherein the threshold period of time is defined in the contingency data (Fig. 3: blocks 310 & 340, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost, then UAV 110 takes a course of action, to fly to a specific location, return to its starting location, leave restricted airspace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Spinelli’s aircraft control for the advantage of broadcasting a transponder code and notifying ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Spinelli’s [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 11 but fails to teach:
further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data in response to detecting the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station, wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
However, Spinelli discloses:
further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data in response to detecting the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station (Fig. 3: block 310, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost), wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code (Fig. 3: block 310, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost) and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
Tillotson and Spinelli are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Spinelli’s aircraft control for the advantage of broadcasting a transponder code and notifying ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Spinelli’s [0003]).
Regarding claim 14, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 13. Spinelli further teaches:
further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to transmit the lost communication notice for a threshold period of time prior to approach and landing at a lost communication landing site (Fig. 3: blocks 310 & 340, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost, then UAV 110 takes a course of action, to fly to a specific location, return to its starting location, leave restricted airspace), wherein the threshold period of time is defined in the contingency data (Fig. 3: blocks 310 & 340, [0019]-[0020] UAV transponder 160 transmits a discrete code signaling that two-way communications has been lost, then UAV 110 takes a course of action, to fly to a specific location, return to its starting location, leave restricted airspace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Spinelli’s aircraft control for the advantage of broadcasting a transponder code and notifying ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Spinelli’s [0003]).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, in view of Tidhar and in view of Yelland et al. (US 20130338856 A1; hereinafter Yelland).
Regarding claim 5, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 1 but fails to teach:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario, wherein the communication system is configured to detect a takeoff lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during takeoff from an origin airport.
However, Yelland discloses:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario ([0096], [0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528/Inbound State 520), wherein the communication system is configured to detect a takeoff lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during takeoff from an origin airport ([0096], [0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528/Inbound State 520).
Tillotson and Yelland are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Yelland’s aircraft control for the advantage of FCC to halt/return the aircraft from taking off/flying in the air which results in the safety of air traffic (Yelland’s [0111]).
Regarding claim 6, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 5. Yelland further teaches:
wherein the flight control system is configured to:
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario prior to a threshold location on a runway, slow the aircraft to a stop and taxi the aircraft to a predetermined location at the origin airport defined in the contingency data; and
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario after passing the threshold location on the runway, control the aircraft to climb and enter a holding pattern near the origin airport according to the contingency data.
However, Yelland discloses:
wherein the flight control system is configured to:
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario prior to a threshold location on a runway ([0096] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528), slow the aircraft to a stop and taxi the aircraft to a predetermined location at the origin airport defined in the contingency data ([0133] decelerate the vehicle from landing/takeoff speeds to a halt, whilst steering the vehicle along the runway centreline as defined by the landing/takeoff waypoints in the mission plan); and
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario after passing the threshold location on the runway ([0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Inbound State 520), control the aircraft to climb and enter a holding pattern near the origin airport according to the contingency data ([0105], [0113] If the FCC is in the Inbound State 520 and the vehicle violates flight extents, transition to the Loiter State 518 for the vehicle to climb over the flight extent, vehicle enters into laps of a loiter pattern flight plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Yelland’s aircraft control for the advantage of FCC to halt/return the aircraft from taking off/flying in the air which results in the safety of air traffic (Yelland’s [0111]).
Regarding claim 15, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 11 but fails to teach:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario, and wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to detect a takeoff lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during takeoff from an origin airport.
However, Yelland discloses:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario ([0096], [0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528/Inbound State 520), and wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to detect a takeoff lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during takeoff from an origin airport ([0096], [0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528/Inbound State 520).
Tillotson and Yelland are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Yelland’s aircraft control for the advantage of FCC to halt/return the aircraft from taking off/flying in the air which results in the safety of air traffic (Yelland’s [0111]).
Regarding claim 16, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 15. Yelland further teaches:
further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to:
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario prior to a threshold location on a runway, slow the aircraft to a stop and taxi the aircraft to a predetermined location at the origin airport defined in the contingency data; and
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario after passing the threshold location on the runway, control the aircraft to climb and enter a holding pattern near the origin airport according to the contingency data.
However, Yelland discloses:
further comprising instructions that cause the one or more processing units to:
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario prior to a threshold location on a runway ([0096] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Rollout State 528), slow the aircraft to a stop and taxi the aircraft to a predetermined location at the origin airport defined in the contingency data ([0133] decelerate the vehicle from landing/takeoff speeds to a halt, whilst steering the vehicle along the runway centreline as defined by the landing/takeoff waypoints in the mission plan); and
in response to detecting the takeoff lost communication scenario after passing the threshold location on the runway ([0103] communications with the GVC are lost, FCC transitions to the Inbound State 520), control the aircraft to climb and enter a holding pattern near the origin airport according to the contingency data ([0105], [0113] If the FCC is in the Inbound State 520 and the vehicle violates flight extents, transition to the Loiter State 518 for the vehicle to climb over the flight extent, vehicle enters into laps of a loiter pattern flight plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Yelland’s aircraft control for the advantage of FCC to halt/return the aircraft from taking off/flying in the air which results in the safety of air traffic (Yelland’s [0111]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, in view of Tidhar, in view of Yelland, and in view of Reynolds (US 20030128122 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 6 but fails to teach:
wherein, while climbing and entering the holding pattern, the communication system is configured to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data, wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
However, Reynolds discloses:
wherein, while climbing and entering the holding pattern ([0027] begin to fly an emergency holding pattern), the communication system is configured to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data ([0027] broadcast an emergency message to ground-based air traffic control using either the aircraft's transponder or VHF radio), wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio ([0027] broadcast an emergency message to ground-based air traffic control using either the aircraft's transponder or VHF radio).
Reynolds is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Reynolds’ aircraft control for the advantage of broadcast emergency message to ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Reynolds’s [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 16 but fails to teach:
wherein, while climbing and entering the holding pattern, the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data, wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio.
However, Reynolds discloses:
wherein, while climbing and entering the holding pattern ([0027] begin to fly an emergency holding pattern), the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to transmit a lost communication notice stored in the contingency data ([0027] broadcast an emergency message to ground-based air traffic control using either the aircraft's transponder or VHF radio), wherein the lost communication notice includes at least one of a transponder code and a stored voice transmission via very high frequency (VHF) radio ([0027] broadcast an emergency message to ground-based air traffic control using either the aircraft's transponder or VHF radio).
Reynolds is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Reynolds’ aircraft control for the advantage of broadcast emergency message to ATC which results in the safety of air traffic (Reynolds’s [0027]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, in view of Tidhar and in view of Rozenberg et al. (US 20200393852 A1; hereinafter Rozenberg).
Regarding claim 8, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 1 but fails to teach:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario, wherein the communication system is configured to detect a landing lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during an approach towards a destination airport.
However, Rozenberg discloses:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario ([0115] detection of communication loss with the control unit), wherein the communication system is configured to detect a landing lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during an approach towards a destination airport ([0115] destination can be a predefined location)([0115] detection of communication loss with the control unit).
Tillotson and Rozenberg are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rozenberg’s aircraft control for the advantage of having a selection of landing sites to land including the destination and alternative landing sites which results in safety landing on the basis of landing window and aircraft’s situation data (Rozenberg’s [0120]).
Regarding claim 18, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 11 but fails to teach:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario, and wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to detect a landing lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during an approach towards a destination airport.
However, Rozenberg discloses:
wherein the degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station is associated with an en route lost communication scenario ([0115] detection of communication loss with the control unit), and wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to detect a landing lost communication scenario in response to degradation in the communication link between the aircraft and the ground control station during an approach towards a destination airport ([0115] destination can be a predefined location)([0115] detection of communication loss with the control unit).
Tillotson and Rozenberg are considered to be analogous because they are in the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rozenberg’s aircraft control for the advantage of having a selection of landing sites to land including the destination and alternative landing sites which results in safety landing on the basis of landing window and aircraft’s situation data (Rozenberg’s [0120]).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tillotson, in view of Tidhar, in view of Rozenberg, and in view of Rinehart et al. (US 20180225976 A1; hereinafter Rinehart).
Regarding claim 9, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 8. Rozenburg further teaches:
wherein, when the aircraft is at a decision threshold altitude during a landing lost communication scenario ([0129] altitude at the time the need for an emergency landing is detected), the flight control system is configured to:
perform a missed approach maneuver according to the contingency data if the aircraft has not received a landing clearance from the ground control station ([0116] landing at an alternative landing site in the vicinity of the aircraft); and
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan (landing at the predefined destination; [0115]).
Rozenburg does not specifically disclose:
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan if the aircraft has received the landing clearance from the ground control station.
However, Rinehart discloses:
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan if the aircraft has received the landing clearance from the ground control station ([0025] aircraft 242 approaches and lands on runway 199 after receiving clearance from ATC 150).
Rinehart is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rinehart’s aircraft control for the advantage of clearing runway for landing which results in air traffic management (Rinehart’s [0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Tillotson as modified discloses the aircraft of claim 9. Rinehart further teaches:
wherein the communication system is configured to transmit landing validation data to the ground control station ([0025] ATC 150) that indicates a predicted landing location on a runway ([0025] runway 199) at the destination airport ([0025] aircraft 242 approaches and lands on runway 199 after receiving clearance from ATC 150), and wherein the landing clearance received by the communication system indicates a human operator ([0019], [0025] clearance from a human operator/ATC) has validated the predicted landing location on the runway.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rinehart’s aircraft control for the advantage of clearing runway for landing which results in air traffic management (Rinehart’s [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 18. Rozenburg further teaches:
wherein, when the aircraft is at a decision threshold altitude during a landing lost communication scenario ([0129] altitude at the time the need for an emergency landing is detected), the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to:
perform a missed approach maneuver according to the contingency data if the aircraft has not received a landing clearance from the ground control station ([0116] landing at an alternative landing site in the vicinity of the aircraft); and
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan (landing at the predefined destination; [0115]).
Rozenburg does not specifically disclose:
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan if the aircraft has received the landing clearance from the ground control station.
However, Rinehart discloses:
control the aircraft to land at the destination airport according to the flight plan if the aircraft has received the landing clearance from the ground control station ([0025] aircraft 242 approaches and lands on runway 199 after receiving clearance from ATC 150).
Rinehart is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of aircraft control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rinehart’s aircraft control for the advantage of clearing runway for landing which results in air traffic management (Rinehart’s [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Tillotson as modified discloses the computer-readable medium of claim 19. Rinehart further teaches:
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processing units to transmit landing validation data to the ground control station ([0025] ATC 150) that indicates a predicted landing location on a runway ([0025] runway 199) at the destination airport ([0025] aircraft 242 approaches and lands on runway 199 after receiving clearance from ATC 150), and wherein the landing clearance received by the aircraft indicates a human operator ([0019], [0025] clearance from a human operator/ATC) has validated the predicted landing location on the runway.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tillotson’s aircraft control to further incorporate Rinehart’s aircraft control for the advantage of clearing runway for landing which results in air traffic management (Rinehart’s [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, 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 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights