Ex Parte Polansky et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 9, 201612849637 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 12/849,637 89955 7590 HONEYWELL/IPL Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 FILING DATE 08/03/2010 02/11/2016 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michal Polansky UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. H0026213 (002.2573) 8240 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, TERESA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patentservices-us@honeywell.com DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com docketing@ifllaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAL POLANSKY, STEPHANE MARCHE, MIKE JACKSON, and CHRISTINE MARIE HAISSIG Appeal2013-008909 1 Application 12/849,6372 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed April 30, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 28, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 20, 2013) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 14, 2013). 2 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to systems and methods by which onboard Airborne Separation Assurance Systems (ASAS) and Required Time of Arrival (R TA) systems may cooperate to maintain aircraft separation and spacing in high density areas" (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An onboard system for self-controlling an aircraft traversing a flight plan, comprising: [a] an autopilot configured to execute a trajectory of the aircraft; [b] a required time of arrival (R TA) system in operable communication with the autopilot, the RT A system configured to determine a RTA trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA of the aircraft at a waypoint along the flight plan; and [ c] an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) in operable communication with the RT A and configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Closse (US 8,027,783 B2, iss. Sept. 27, 2011) and Klooster (US 8,010,267 B2, iss. Aug. 30, 2011) (Final Act. 3). Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Closse, Klooster, and Deker (US 2010/0217 510 A 1, pub. Aug. 26, 2010) (id. at 5). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Closse, Klooster, and Estkowski (US 2009/0125221 Al, iss. May 14, 2009) (id. at 7). 2 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 Claims 6, 12, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Deker and Closse (id.). Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Deker, Closse, and Estkowski (id. at 11 ). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the proposed combination of Closse and Klooster does not disclose or suggest "a required time of arrival (RT A) system ... configured to determine a RT A trajectory of the aircraft based on an R TA of the aircraft at a waypoint along the flight plan" and "an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) in operable communication with the RT A and configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft," as recited in limitations [b] and [ c], respectively, of independent claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9-12; see also Reply Br. 2-3). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Closse and Klooster discloses the argued limitations (Final Act. 3--4 (citing Closse col. 2, 11. 25---61, col. 3, 1. 62 - col. 4, 1. 12, col. 7, 11. 16--41, col. 8, 11. 17-29; Klooster col. 1, 1. 56 - col. 2, 1. 10, col. 7, 11. 40---67, and Figures 1-7)). Closse is directed to an automatic flight management device 1 which is used to automatically guide an airplane comprising: "a flight management system [3] which constructs the reference trajectory which the airplane will have to follow; a flight computer [7] which guides the airplane along this reference trajectory; display means which inform the pilot about the conduct 3 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 of the flight; and links between each of these subsystems" ( Closse col. 1, 11. 49-59; see also id. at col. 5, 11. 17--40 and Fig. 1 ). Closse also discloses a "means of actuation of control members (air foils, etc.)" which executes guidance orders (id. col. 2, 11. 39-50, see also id. at col. 3, 11. 33--41). Closse discloses that its flight management system determines a four-dimensional flight trajectory comprising a three-dimensional trajectory and indications of corresponding times of passage, and said flight computer comprises means for comparing this four-dimensional flight trajectory with the actual position of the aircraft and with the current time, and for deducing therefrom speed directives forming part of said guidance orders. (Id. at col. 4, 11. 31-3 8). Closse further discloses that its guidance device includes a "means for formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory making it possible to comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft" (id. at col. 4, 11. 51-55). In doing so, Closse discloses that its guidance device includes a "means for sending at least said flight trajectory out of the aircraft, in particular destined for ground controllers and/or destined for surrounding aircraft" (id. at col. 4, 11. 39--43). Closse also discloses that its flight computer 7 includes: means 23 for formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory, making it possible to comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft. To do this, the flight computer 7 receives from the flight management system 3 the three-dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere. This function makes it possible to manage a spacing of the aircraft in the environs of points of entry to a controlled air zone, thereby making it possible in 4 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 particular to ease air control and improve the flow of air tratlic. In a variant embodiment, the processing operations implemented by means 23 may also be implemented by the means (not represented) which are integrated into the flight management system 3. (Id. at col. 7, 11. 41-58). Closse also discloses: guidance device 1 can comprise standard sending means 30 which are connected by way of a link 31 for example to said flight management system 3 and which are able to send out of the aircraft, for example in the form of electromagnetic waves OE, in particular said flight trajectory which has been determined by said flight management system 3. Said means 30 may send the flight trajectory to controllers on the ground and/or to aircraft in the close environment of the aircraft equipped with the guidance device 1 in accordance with the invention. Dual sending such as this relates to a global function dubbed ASAS ("Airborne Separation Assurance System"), the aim of which is to improve air traffic management. (Id. at col. 8, 11. 17-29). Klooster is directed to "a system for time of arrival control of a vehicle using available speed range" (Klooster col. 1, 11. 8-10). Klooster discloses that its "vehicle control system 700 includes an input device 702 configured to receive a required time of arrival at a waypoint and a processor 704 communicatively coupled to the input device" (id. at col. 7, 11. 43--46). Klooster further discloses: processor 704 is further programmed to generate a first speed profile wherein the first speed profile is the speed profile necessary to meet the intermediate control time, starting from the current aircraft position at the current time and to generate a second speed profile wherein the second speed profile is the speed profile necessary to meet the RT A starting from the intermediate control point at the intermediate control time. 5 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 Processor 704 is further programmed to generate the reference time profile using the first speed profile up to the intermediate control point and the second speed profile between the intermediate control point and the RT A waypoint. (Id. at col. 7, 11. 56-67). Appellants argue that the combination of Closse and Klooster fails to disclose or suggest "a required time of arrival (RT A) system," as recited by limitation [b] of claim 1, because the portions of Closse cited by the Examiner refer to "the guidance device 1 (which is the Examiner's chosen Autopilot)" (Appeal Br. 9-10). However, Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because "the guidance device 1," disclosed in Closse, is not limited solely to the "autopilot," recited in claim 1; rather, the "autopilot" is just a portion of the guidance device 1 depicted in Figure 1. In this regard, Closse discloses that guidance device 1, depicted in Figure 1, includes a "means of actuation of control members (air foils, etc.)" which executes guidance orders (Closse col. 2, 11. 39-50, see also id. at col. 3, 11. 33--41), and as such, constitutes "an autopilot." We note that this "means of actuation" is only part of the "guidance device 1," depicted in Figure 1, upon which the Examiner relies (see Final Act. 3). Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because the cited "guidance device 1" is not limited solely to an autopilot; but rather, to a guidance device 1 which includes "at least one navigation database 2," "at least one flight management system 3," "a flight computer 7, and "standard means of actuation 9" (Closse col. 5, 11. 17--40). Equally unpersuasive is Appellants' argument that "[ n ]owhere is any component in Closse described as being a RT A system 'configured to determine a RTA trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA of the aircraft at 6 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 a waypoint along the flight plan"' (Appeal Br. 10). In this regard, Closse discloses that its flight management system determines a four-dimensional flight trajectory comprising a three-dimensional trajectory and indications of corresponding times of passage, and said flight computer comprises means for comparing this four-dimensional flight trajectory with the actual position of the aircraft and with the current time, and for deducing therefrom speed directives forming part of said guidance orders. (Closse col. 4, 11. 31-38). We find that this disclosure describes a RT A system, as required by limitation [b] of claim 1. We note this interpretation is reasonable in light of Appellants' Specification which discloses that "[a] flight management system (PMS) is an onboard system that may include RT A capability. This RTA capability allows an aircraft to 'self-deliver' to a specified waypoint or waypoints of a flight plan at a specified time along a four-dimensional trajectory (latitude, longitude, altitude and time)" (Spec. i-f 4). Appellants also argue that Closse fails to disclose or suggest an "airborne separation assurance system (ASAS)" because the device called an ASAS by Closse is expressly described as a "standard sending means 30" (See FIG. 1, #30) that communicates with the PMS (i.e., the Examiner's autopilot) and sends out of the aircraft the flight trajectory determined by the PMS (i.e., the Examiner's autopilot) to the ground and to other aircraft. (Appeal Br. 10-11 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-3). However, Closse describes that its "means 23 for formulating a four- dimensional flight trajectory[] mak[ es] it possible to comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft" (Closse col. 7, 11. 41--46). Closse further discloses "[t]o do this, the flight computer 7 7 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 receives from the flight management system 3 the three-dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11. 46-51, emphasis added). In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the "sending means 30" in Closse is not limited to only sending flight trajectory information out of the aircraft "to the ground and to other aircraft," as Appellants assert; but rather, capable of bi-directional "[d]ual sending," as it relates to "a global function dubbed ASAS ('Airborne Separation Assurance System'), the aim of which is to improve air traffic management" (see id. at col. 8, 11. 26-29). Thus, we find that Closse discloses "determin[ing] a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft," as recited by limitation [ c] of claim 1. We note that this interpretation is reasonable in light of Appellants' Specification which discloses that "[t]he ASAS 120 tracks the position of the other reference aircraft 110 and compiles an own ship trajectory to maintain station on one particular reference aircraft based on stationing instructions 10 received from an ATC 125" (Spec. i-f 27) and defines the term "compile" "in the broad sense of the word as in assembling, collecting or calculating and is not intended to be restricted to the meaning of 'compiling' as used in the art of computer programming" (id. at i-f 33). Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Appellants also argue that Closse fails to disclose "an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) ... configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft," as 8 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 recited by limitation [ c] of claim 1, because spacing trajectory is determined "by the Examiner's autopilot in Closse" and not the ASAS (Appeal Br. 10- 11 ). Appellants' argument, however, is not persuasive at least because it is not commensurate in scope with the language of the claim. In this regard, we note that limitation [ c] recites "an airborne separation assurance system (ASAS) in operable communication with the RTA and configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft" (emphasis added), which we interpret to mean that the determination is made by the ASAS in cooperation with the RT A system. This interpretation is consistent with the language of limitation [b ], which recites "a required time of arrival (R TA) system in operable communication with the autopilot, the RT A system configured to determine a RT A trajectory of the aircraft based on an RTA of the aircraft at a waypoint along the flight plan" (emphasis added), and, thus, makes clear that the determination is made by the RT A system alone. We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Closse fails to discloses an RT A system, as required by limitations [b] and [ c], because "the Examiner specifically relies on Klooster as describing an R TA system" (see Appeal Br. 12). Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not specifically rely on Klooster to disclose an RT A system but rather, cites "Klooster to provide a more complete way of controlling an arrival time of an autopilot flight plan" (Final Act. 4). In this regard, the Examiner makes clear that "Closse teaches autopilot, RT A, waypoint and ASAS as all pertinent limitations, while Klooster is another reference that teaches autopilot, trajectory and waypoint, with more emphasis on R TA" (id. at 3- 4). 9 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 11, which are not argued separately. Dependent claim 4 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "[i]n light of the discussion above in regard to independent claim 1, neither Closse nor Klooster describes an ASAS system that is configured to determine a spacing trajectory based on a spacing interval from a first reference aircraft" (Appeal Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 3). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 4 for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Dependent claim 5 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because "[i]n light of the discussion above in regard to independent claim 1, neither Closse nor Klooster describes an ASAS system that is 'configured to visually provide maneuvering data to a pilot in regard to either the spacing trajectory, the RTA trajectory or both the spacing trajectory and the RTA trajectory[']" (Appeal Br. 13). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. 10 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 5 for the same reasons as independent claim 1. Independent claim 6 and dependent claim 8 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the proposed combination of Deker and Closse does not disclose or suggest "determining if the spacing interval to the first reference aircraft will be violated while executing the RTA trajectory," as recited by claim 6 (Appeal Br. 13-14). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Deker and Closse discloses the argued limitation (Final Act. 7-8 (citing Deker i189)). Deker is directed to an aircraft flight management system which ensures "compliance with time constraints and/or relative spacing constraints" (Deker i-f l ). More particularly, Deker discloses: [i]n the case of maintaining separation, the principle consists in acquiring the position of the preceding aircraft by ADS-B, comparing it in real time through a Situation Awareness module 880 with the current position of the aircraft 870 and if the distance is insufficient for the safety separation, the trajectory is recalculated 820 by lengthening (if the two aircraft are getting closer) or shortening (if the two aircraft are moving further apart) for example the current section (general case) so as to keep the separation constant. The trajectory modification, previously accepted by the pilot, is dispatched to the guidance 800 which will be slaved thereto. The flight plan is not modified for all that and the guidance is done automatically by the PMS ("managed" mode). (Id. at i1 89). 11 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 Appellants argue that claim 6 recites that the determining step determines whether the spacing interval will be violated in the future, whereas Deker "compar[es] an aircraft position in real time and 'if the distance is insufficient' the trajectory is lengthened" (see Appeal Br. 13-14). However, we agree with the Examiner that Deker discloses the argued limitation (see Ans. 8). In this regard, Deker discloses modifying its flight plan if it determines that there is insufficient distance for maintaining separation with another aircraft (see Deker i-f 89). Thus, Deker determines "whether the spacing interval will be violated in the future" (i.e., whether there will be insufficient spacing at a particular trajectory), and as such, discloses the argued limitation. Appellants also argue that the combination of Deker and Closse fails to disclose or suggest "compiling a first spacing trajectory based at least upon a spacing interval to a first reference aircraft by an airborne separation assurance system," as recited by independent claim 6, because "as discussed above in regard to the rejection[] of independent claim 1, Closse describes its ASAS as being merely a 'standard communications device 30'" (Appeal Br. 13-14). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, the "sending means 30" in Closse is not limited to only sending flight trajectory information out of the aircraft. Furthermore, as discussed above, Closse describes that its "means 23 for formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory[] mak[ es] it possible to comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft" (Closse col. 7, 11. 41--46). Closse further discloses "[t]o do this, flight computer 7 receives from the flight management system 3 the three-dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and 12 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 said means 23 formulate the four-dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11. 46-51, emphasis added). Thus, Closse discloses "compiling a first spacing trajectory based at least upon a spacing interval to a first reference aircraft by an airborne separation assurance system," as recited by claim 1, and as such, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8, which is not argued separately. Independent claim 12 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the proposed combination of Deker and Closse does not disclose or suggest "compiling a spacing trajectory by an airborne separation assurance system based at least in part upon a spacing interval requirement," as recited by claim 12 (Appeal Br. 14--15). Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Deker and Closse discloses the argued limitation (see Final Act. 9 (citing Closse col. 4, 11. 25-30, col. 4, 11. 39--43, col. 7, 11. 42--46, col. 8, 11. 17-29)). As discussed above, Closse describes that its "means 23 for formulating a four-dimensional flight trajectory[] mak[es] it possible to comply with a particular spacing with respect to at least one other aircraft" (Closse col. 7, 11. 41--46). Closse further discloses "[t]o do this, flight computer 7 receives from the flight management system 3 the three- 13 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 dimensional position and the speed of the airplane to be followed, as well as the directive and the type of spacing, and said means 23 formulate the four- dimensional trajectory to which the aircraft must adhere" (id. at col. 7, 11. 46-51, emphasis added). Thus, Closse discloses "compiling a spacing trajectory by an airborne separation assurance system based at least in part upon a spacing interval requirement," as recited by claim 12, and as such, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 13 and 16--18 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Deker, upon which the Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 13 (see Appeal Br. 15). In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites Figures 4 and 6, paragraphs 49, 60, 65, 93, and claims 1-3 of Deker, as disclosing the argued limitation (Ans. 9-10). We agree with Appellants. As Appellants' point out, the cited portions of Deker "describe various embodiments where a new trajectory is determined in order to close a time constraint[, but] are silent about creating a new RTA trajectory when a spacing requirement to an aircraft has been reestablished," as required by claim 13 (see Appeal Br. 15). We also note that the Examiner neither responds to Appellants' argument in the Answer nor explains how the cited portions of Deker disclose or suggest the argued limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 14 Appeal2013-008909 Application 12/849,637 § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-18 which are dependent therein. Dependent claim 15 Claim 15 depends from dependent claim 13.3 The rejection of dependent claim 15 based on Estkowski, in combination with Deker and Closse, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 13, as described above. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to dependent claim 13. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. The Examiner's rejections of claims 13 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 3 We note that claim 15 depends on cancelled claim 14, presently. In a claim amendment, filed March 23, 2012, Appellants' cancelled claim 14 which was dependent on claim 13. Thus, for purposes of this appeal only, we will assume claim 15 depends on claim 13. 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation