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 .
Status of the Claims
The Preliminary Amendments filed on 04 September 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement(s) have not been separately considered.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 10 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-10 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1 (additional elements omitted) – Claims 1 and 10 recite:
receiving fault information recording at least one technical fault of the aircraft;
for each recorded technical fault, determining, [ ] by a minimum equipment list, one or more items from the minimum equipment list, called MEL items affected by said technical fault, with each affected MEL item relating to an inoperative item of equipment or function of the aircraft and defining one or more dispatch conditions for the aircraft for a possible future mission;
receiving a technical status of the aircraft, including technical data relating to the operation of equipment or functions of the aircraft; and
for each affected MEL item, determining based on the technical status of the aircraft, one or more applicable dispatch conditions from among the one or more dispatch conditions defined in said affected MEL item;
receiving [ ]the one or more applicable dispatch conditions for each affected MEL item; and
determining a proposed scenario based, on the one hand, on the one or more dispatch conditions applicable for each affected MEL item and, on the other hand, on a set of future missions to be distributed among a fleet of aircraft including said aircraft, said proposed scenario comprising:
a decision to repair the aircraft or to dispatch the aircraft under the one or more affected MEL items and, in the event of a decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items: one or more future missions assigned to the aircraft;
for each affected MEL item, one or more dispatch conditions selected from among the one or more applicable dispatch conditions; and
one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft, belonging to the group comprising: one or more system reconfigurations to be carried out, one or more operational limitations to be observed, and one or more inspections or checks to be carried out;
receiving the proposed scenario;
receiving a decision from an aircraft pilot to accept or reject the proposed scenario; and in the event of an acceptance decision, triggering the completion of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft and recording the following in a logbook:
said at least one technical fault of the aircraft;
a new current operational status of the aircraft indicating the decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items for the one or more future missions assigned to the aircraft;
for each affected MEL item, the one or more dispatch conditions selected from among the one or more applicable dispatch conditions; and an execution status of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft.
The aforementioned limitations recite processes which fall within “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” which includes teaching and following rules or instructions. Further, the limitations, as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by the human mind. Therefore the claim(s) as a whole fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, and the Mental Process grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “a first computer,” “an electronic flight bag,” “electronic circuity,” “a database,” “a second computer,” “electronic circuitry,” “a third computer,” “”an electronic flight bag” in claim 1; and the additional elements of “a system,” “a first computer,” “an electronic flight bag,” ”electronic circuitry,” “a database,” “a second computer,” “electronic circuitry,” “a third computer,” “an electronic flight bag” and “electronic circuitry” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
Step 2B - As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per Dependent Claims 2, 3, and 5, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract limitations. Dependent claim 2 recites wherein, in the event of a decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items, the proposed scenario includes, for each affected MEL item, at least one dispatch condition selected from among a group of at least two applicable dispatch conditions that are mutually exclusive. Dependent claim 3 recites implementation in a maintenance control centre and/or in an operational control centre. Dependent claim 5 recites wherein the at least one task whose automatic execution is triggered corresponds to the one or more system reconfigurations to be carried out. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 2, 3, and 5, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claim 4 recites “wherein, in the event of a decision to accept the proposed scenario by the pilot… triggers the automatic execution of at least one task from among the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 6 recites “transmitting the decision of the aircraft pilot…” and “in the event of an acceptance decision, transmitting the execution status of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 7 recites “a contextualised database” which is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 8 recites “if the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicating a previous decision to dispatch under at least one MEL item: detecting any conflicts of a first type between :o the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that are already considered inoperative because they are affected by the one or more MEL items according to which the previous decision to dispatch was made…” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 9 recites “if the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicating a previous decision to dispatch under at least one MEL item: detecting any conflicts of a second type between: the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that must be non-inoperative in order to keep applicable one or more dispatch conditions previously selected during a previous iteration of the method…” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 2-9 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-9, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vial (US PG Pub. 20100049379 A1).
As per claims 1 and 10, discloses a method and system for assisting in the operational decision-making of an aircraft, the method being executed during a current mission of the aircraft and comprising:
in a first computer, implemented in the aircraft or in an electronic flight bag or on the ground, and comprising electronic circuitry (Vial: [0039] The set of components 105 used to detect failures, as well as the capture means 110, are connected to a computer 115 suited to determining a failure state of the aircraft.:
receiving fault information recording at least one technical fault of the aircraft (Vial: [0036][0039][0063],[0068],[0072]-[0079] The device here comprises a set of components 105 used to detect failures of the systems with which they are associated. These components are, for example, pieces of equipment of the alarm monitor and computer type. They make it possible to detect and transmit alerts in order to indicate faults and failures to the pilot);
for each recorded technical fault, determining by consulting a database comprising a minimum equipment list, one or more items from the minimum equipment list, called MEL items affected by said technical fault (Vial: [0016] accessing a database comprising a minimum equipment list and operating conditions and/or limitations associated with the operation thereof); and (Vial: [0005]-[0007][0039] Moreover, the pilot has a document called MEL (acronym for Minimum Equipment List in English terminology) established by the airline company operating the aircraft starting from a document called MMEL (acronym for Master Minimum Equipment List in English terminology) the content of which makes it possible to identify the conditions under which the aircraft can be operated despite the existence of failure),
with each affected MEL item relating to an inoperative item of equipment or function of the aircraft and defining one or more dispatch conditions for the aircraft for a possible future mission (Vial: [0041] The computer 115 is connected to the computer 125, itself connected to a database 130. The computer 125 makes it possible to establish a first correlation by comparing the failure state of the aircraft with the MEL in order, in particular, to determine the capability of the aircraft to be used in this state or whether a maintenance intervention is obligatory. In other words, the computer 125 makes it possible to determine the functional state of the aircraft);
receiving technical status of the aircraft, including technical data relating to the operation of equipment or functions of the aircraft (Vial: [0041][0005]-[0007][0039][0055][0063]-[0064][0068]-[0084]) The computer 115 is connected to the computer 125, itself connected to a database 130. The computer 125 makes it possible to establish a first correlation by comparing the failure state of the aircraft with the MEL in order, in particular, to determine the capability of the aircraft to be used in this state or whether a maintenance intervention is obligatory. In other words, the computer 125 makes it possible to determine the functional state of the aircraft); and
for each affected MEL item, determining based on the technical status of the aircraft, one or more applicable dispatch conditions from among the one or more dispatch conditions defined in said affected MEL item (Vial: [0063]-[0064] A step 200 has as its purpose to determine the functional state of the aircraft. As indicated above, this state is determined from the MEL or from corresponding data and from alert, diagnosis and/or prognosis devices, these devices being integrated into the aircraft and/or into a ground system; and The possible conditions and restrictions for carrying out the next mission or missions then are determined by comparing the functional state of the aircraft with the MEL (step 205));
in a second computer, installed on the ground and comprising electronic circuitry (Vial: [0041] The computer 115 is connected to the computer 125, itself connected to a database 130. The computer 125 makes it possible to establish a first correlation by comparing the failure state of the aircraft with the MEL in order, in particular, to determine the capability of the aircraft to be used in this state or whether a maintenance intervention is obligatory. In other words, the computer 125 makes it possible to determine the functional state of the aircraft):
receiving from the first computer the one or more applicable dispatch conditions for each affected MEL item (Vial: [0041] The computer 115 is connected to the computer 125, itself connected to a database 130. The computer 125 makes it possible to establish a first correlation by comparing the failure state of the aircraft with the MEL in order, in particular, to determine the capability of the aircraft to be used in this state or whether a maintenance intervention is obligatory. In other words, the computer 125 makes it possible to determine the functional state of the aircraft); and
determining a proposed scenario based, on the one hand, on the one or more dispatch conditions applicable for each affected MEL item and, on the other hand, on a set of future missions to be distributed among a fleet of aircraft including said aircraft, said proposed scenario comprising (Vial: [0045] All the alerts detected are processed here by the computer 135 in order to aid the pilot in deciding whether the aircraft is capable of carrying out the next mission or missions. For these purposes, the functional limitations determined by the computer 125 are compared with the data received relating to the next missions. If it results from this comparison that the next mission or missions can be carried out subject to certain reservations, for example, by modifying the standard procedures (also called standard operating procedures), a list of tasks to be performed is constructed in order to indicate the tasks to be performed at the given moment.:
a decision to repair the aircraft or to dispatch the aircraft under the one or more affected MEL items (Vial: [0055] For each failure identified in flight, the computer 135 determines whether it has an impact on the flight in progress. If the answer is yes, the alert is presented to the pilot. Moreover, each identified failure is compared with the MEL to determine whether the aircraft is capable of making another takeoff. If the failure indication received is not sufficient for determining the consequences thereof, the computer 125 queries the computer 115 which, in turn, can query the set of components 105, for example the BITES. If it is not possible to clear up an ambiguity over the consequences of a detected failure, for example, if it is not possible to isolate the failure, the computer 115 can query the pilot or an operator, for example a maintenance operator on the ground)and,
in the event of a decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items: one or more future missions assigned to the aircraft: for each affected MEL item, one or more dispatch conditions selected from among the one or more applicable dispatch conditions (Vial: [0056] In this way, the computer 125 is able to determine whether the aircraft has the functional capabilities to carry out the next missions (state known under the name of "GO"), whether the aircraft does not have the functional capabilities to carry out the next missions (state known under the name of "NO GO") and whether the aircraft has the functional capabilities to carry out the next missions subject to certain reservations linked to the missions or to particular procedures (state known under the name of "GO IF"); and
one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft, belonging to the group comprising: one or more system reconfigurations to be carried out, one or more operational limitations to be observed, and one or more inspections or checks to be carried out (Vial: [0066] In this way, according to the result of these steps, the pilot is informed about the possibility of carrying out the next mission or missions. If it is possible to carry out these missions under certain conditions, the pilot can decide, according to the latter, whether the aircraft can be used to carry them out); and ([0073] When the functional status of the aircraft is "GO IF," the maintenance actions (reference 322) to be implemented are determined, the technical conditions and limitations (reference 324) are evaluated, as well as the operating conditions and limitations (reference 326) linked to the planned missions (phase 305). The information items relating to the planned missions are received from the operating control center called OCC (abbreviation for Operating Control Center in English terminology). The operating control center also can transmit technical information items on operation of the aircraft according to the policy of the airline company, for example) also see Fig.2 [210], Fig. 3, [300-4);
in a third computer, implemented in the aircraft or in an electronic flight bag, and comprising electronic circuitry (Vial: [0043] The computers 115 and 125 are connected to the computer 135 which has as its main purpose to filter the alerts originating from the computer 115 and to establish a second correlation in order to provide an aid in the decision on operation of the aircraft):
receiving the proposed scenario from the second computer (Vial: [0066] In this way, according to the result of these steps, the pilot is informed about the possibility of carrying out the next mission or missions. If it is possible to carry out these missions under certain conditions, the pilot can decide, according to the latter, whether the aircraft can be used to carry them out);
receiving a decision from an aircraft pilot to accept or reject the proposed scenario (Vial: [0066] In this way, according to the result of these steps, the pilot is informed about the possibility of carrying out the next mission or missions. If it is possible to carry out these missions under certain conditions, the pilot can decide, according to the latter, whether the aircraft can be used to carry them out), also see [0077], Fig. 2, Fig.3 [300-7] ; and
in the event of an acceptance decision, triggering the completion of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft and recording the following in a logbook: said at least one technical fault of the aircraft (Vial: [0045] All the alerts detected are processed here by the computer 135 in order to aid the pilot in deciding whether the aircraft is capable of carrying out the next mission or missions. For these purposes, the functional limitations determined by the computer 125 are compared with the data received relating to the next missions. If it results from this comparison that the next mission or missions can be carried out subject to certain reservations, for example, by modifying the standard procedures (also called standard operating procedures), a list of tasks to be performed is constructed in order to indicate the tasks to be performed at the given moment), also see [0072];
a new current operational status of the aircraft indicating the decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items for the one or more future missions assigned to the aircraft (Vial: [0067]-[0085]);
for each affected MEL item, the one or more dispatch conditions selected from among the one or more applicable dispatch conditions; and an execution status of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft (Vial: [0067]-[0085]).
As per claim 2, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein, in the event of a decision to dispatch under the one or more affected MEL items, the proposed scenario includes, for each affected MEL item, at least one dispatch condition selected from among a group of at least two applicable dispatch conditions that are mutually exclusive (Vial: FIG. 2, [205]; FIG 3. [300-5];[0068[-[0084]2.
As per claim 3, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1,wherein the second computerVial: [0040] The computer also can receive information items such as diagnosis and/or prognosis information items via a communication with the ground, referenced 120, preferably a wireless communication such as a satellite communication. These information items can result from a processing of the data received from the aircraft by a maintenance control center ).
As per claim 6, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1,further comprising, in the third computer:
transmitting the decision of the aircraft pilot to the second computer and, in the event of an acceptance decision, transmitting the execution status of the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft (Vial: [0006]).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vial (US PG Pub. 20100049379 A1) in view of Shavit (US PG Pub. 20200047913 A1).
As per claim 4, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1. Vial does not further disclose, however, Shavit discloses:
, wherein, in the event of a decision to accept the proposed scenario by the pilot, the third computer triggers the automatic execution of at least one task from among the one or more possible tasks to be carried out in the aircraft (Abstract: . A method of aircraft operation, the method comprising accepting a human pilot's selection of at least one checklist from among plural checklists stored in computer memory; and, responsive to the pilot's selection, using a processor for automatically performing all operations included in the individual checklist.); [0013] Certain embodiments seek to harness a computer's ability to initialize, select modes of operation and monitor system parameters, in order to automatically perform checklists e.g. in accordance with flight-phases or other states defined by a pilot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vial to include the automatic performance of tasks as taught by Shavit in order to provide the reduction of operational time required on ground by virtue of a system that executes its checklists faster and improving safety by eliminating human pilot errors confounding checklist execution and enabling pilot to concentrate on other flight tasks that require human expertise (Shavit: [0023-[0024])
As per claim 5, Vial in view of Shavit discloses the method according to Claim 4. Vial further discloses wherein the at least one task whose automatic execution is triggered by the third computer corresponds to the one or more system reconfigurations to be carried out (Vial: [0077] The maintenance actions to be performed, the changes made in the standard procedures, the new configuration, the components to be checked, the operating consequences linked to the identified failures as well as the other constraints make it possible to determine an overall status (referenced 338) that is presented to the pilot, if need be with other indications (reference 340) such as the opinion of a technical operation agent, called dispatcher in English terminology, and with the data received from the operating control center, in order to aid him in deciding whether or not the aircraft can be operated to complete the planned missions (part 300-7)..
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vial (US PG Pub. 20100049379 A1) in view of Gulli et al. (FR3102756 A1).
As per claim, 7, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1,wherein the database comprising the minimum equipment list
results from filtering, based on said aircraft, a complete minimum equipment list common to a plurality of aircraft including said aircraft (Vial: [0043] The computers 115 and 125 are connected to the computer 135 which has as its main purpose to filter the alerts originating from the computer 115 and to establish a second correlation in order to provide an aid in the decision on operation of the aircraft. This second correlation is determined according to the failures detected, the MEL or similar indications and operating data relating to the missions assigned to the aircraft.; and
is limited to the information necessary for implementing the method in the first, second and third computers (Vial: [0044] The detected alerts relating only to the capability of the aircraft to carry out a future mission and having no importance for the current flight preferably are filtered by the computer 135 so as not to disturb the pilot. Nonetheless, these alerts advantageously are stored to be processed later, for example in order to carry out maintenance operations. The filtering is accomplished, for example, according to the nature and level of the alerts).
Vial does not explicitly disclose, however, Gulli et al. discloses the database is a contextualised database (Gulli et al.: Abstract; The invention relates to a system for troubleshooting an aircraft, comprising: - storage units (7) configured to store a contextual database (13) modeling objects of the troubleshooting procedure, said contextual database (13) being a dematerialization of a fault finding manual generated by an engineering technique for modeling complex systems). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vial to include the contextual database as taught by Gulli et al. as joining the technical database and the contextual database is used to manage in real time an interactive flow of tasks to be carried out for troubleshooting (Gulli et al.: page 3, last paragraph - page 4, 1st paragraph).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vial (US PG Pub. 20100049379 A1) in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 8, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1.
Vial does not explicitly disclose further comprising, in the first computer:
if the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicating a previous decision to dispatch under at least one MEL item: detecting any conflicts of a first type between:
the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that are already considered inoperative because they are affected by the one or more MEL items according to which the previous decision to dispatch was made; and
the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that must be non-inoperative in order to make the one or more dispatch conditions defined in the one or more affected MEL items that the first computer has determined applicable; and
if a conflict of the first type is detected, for an item of equipment or a function that should be non-inoperative in order to make a given new dispatch condition applicable but that is already considered inoperative, then said given new dispatch condition is declared inapplicable.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known that even after a “go” decision for a next mission, the current operational state can change or a new fault of equipment can emerge midflight thus, possibly making the previous pilot decision invalid based on the MEL as some rules cannot be relaxed, as well as, the pilot having the responsibility of mitigating risk. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a new dispatch inapplicable when equipment is inoperative instead of the required non-inoperative function to mitigate the risk of continuing with the mission.
As per claim 9, Vial discloses the method according to Claim 1. Vial does not further disclose comprising, in the first computer: if the aircraft is already in a current operational state indicating a previous decision to dispatch under at least one MEL item:
detecting any conflicts of a second type between: the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that must be non-inoperative in order to keep applicable one or more dispatch conditions previously selected during a previous iteration of the method, and defined in the one or more MEL items according to which the previous decision to dispatch was made; and
the one or more items of equipment or the one or more functions of the aircraft that are now considered inoperative because they are affected by the one or more affected MEL items that the first computer has determined; and
if a conflict of the second type is detected, for an item of equipment or a function that should be non-inoperative in order to keep a given previous dispatch condition applicable but that is now considered inoperative, then said given previous dispatch condition is declared inapplicable.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known that even after a “go” decision for a next mission, the current operational state can change or a new fault of equipment can emerge midflight thus, possibly making the previous pilot decision invalid based on the MEL as some rules cannot be relaxed, as well as, the pilot having the responsibility of mitigating risk. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a new dispatch inapplicable when equipment is inoperative instead of the required non-inoperative function to mitigate the risk of continuing with the mission.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ferro (US PG Pub. 20090326738 A1) discloses a device for aiding to take a decision concerning the ability of an aircraft to start a flight by providing a Minimum Equipment List or MEL list, which describes the minimum equipment that must be in a fit state to operate, by system categories, to perform the flight.
2) Barac et al. (CN 102999799 A) discloses an aircraft task management system that identifies an aircraft current state, then uses the current state of the task database and aircraft to identify task group.
3) Cox, John, “Ask the Captain: When takeoffs are aborted”, June 14, 2015, usatoday.com, 2 pages, discloses readers submitting questions about what could cause a flight to be aborted during takeoff due to an indicator light going off, a hydraulic warning light, or engine failure.
4) Shief, Chris, “Go / No-Go: Why Are We Rejecting Above V1?”, 8 June 2021, ops.group, 7 pages discloses that rejected take-offs aren’t new because every time we open up those thrust levers and accelerate down a runway there is a risk that something will go wrong and that we will need to stop again. Which is why we brief before every departure.
5) Davoren, Haley, “New FAA video discusses plan continuation bias and the impact on pilot error”, Dec 2, 2022, globalair.com., 10 pages discloses that in the FAA briefing, it said that research by the General Aviation Joint Safety Committee’s Controlled Flight into Terrain work group suggests human bias, like plan continuation bias, could be a significant factor in CFIT crashes; and the FAA said that pilots routinely face pressure and stress while flying. This could result in a pilot ignoring red flags before or during a flight that would normally trigger a change in plans. The FAA said that plan continuation bias, according to psychologists, is an unconscious bias that can appear stronger the closer you get to accomplishing an activity.
6) Maaz, Anas, “Minimum Equipment Lists: Keeping Planes Flying With Inoperative Parts”, Aug 4, 2022, simpleflying.com, 11 pages discloses that because airplanes are, by design, highly redundant and for almost every piece of equipment, there is
duplicate equipment with the same function which has the capability to take over the
role of its failed counterpart, airplanes can remain perfectly airworthy with certain equipment inoperative. However, there is a set procedure to fly with inoperative items. It requires consultation with an operational document called the Minimum equipment list (MEL).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights