Ex Parte WESTERVELT et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

15282003 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/282,003 09/30/2016 6147 7590 04/02/2019 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH 901 Main Avenue 3rd Floor Norwalk, CT 06851 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric Richard WESTERVELT 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. 313961-1 us 6744 EXAMINER LEE, TYLERJ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): haeckl@ge.com gpo.mail@ge.com Lori.e.rooney@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC RICHARD WESTERVELT, MACKENZIE CUMINGS, MARK LAWRENCE DARNELL, DAVID LAX, LILING REN, and NICHOLAS VISSER 1 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 Technology Center 3600 Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Chan (US 8,924,137 B2, issued Dec. 30, 2014). Claim 8 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 General Electric Company ("Appellant") is the applicant as provided under 3 7 C. F. R. Â§ 1. 46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3 ("Appeal Br."), filed Feb. 14, 2018. Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter "relates generally to flight management, more particularly, to systems, devices and methods of operation for flight management and applications thereof." Spec. ,r 1, Fig. 2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 1. A method implemented by a processor of a computing system to optimize aircraft guidance to minimize direct operating cost of a prescribed flight, the method comprising: obtaining flight data for a prescribed flight from at least one of an airborne system of a particular aircraft to execute the prescribed flight and a system separate and distinct from the airborne system having a source of data related to the prescribed flight, the flight data including specific details relating to at least one of the particular aircraft and parameters of the prescribed flight; performing, by a processor of an external computational asset and based on the obtained flight data, a control optimization to generate optimized path specific controls for the prescribed flight; transmitting the optimized path specific controls via a communication uplink from the external computational asset to the particular aircraft; and guiding, in response to receiving the optimized path specific controls by the particular aircraft, the particular aircraft in accordance with the optimized path specific controls to execute the prescribed flight. 2 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 ANALYSIS Claims 1-7 and 10-21 Appellant does not off er arguments for independent claim 11 or dependent claims 2-7, 10, and 12-21 separate from those presented for independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9-13. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 2-7 and 10-21 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We address claim 9 separately below. Appellant contends Chan fails to disclose the step of "performing, by a processor of an external computational asset and based on the obtained flight data, a control optimization to generate optimized path specific controls for the prescribed flight." Appeal Br. 10; see also id. 12-13 ("Inno way whatsoever can Chan be interpreted by the Examiner as teaching a control optimization is performed by a processor of an external computational asset to generate optimized path specific controls for the prescribed flight, as recited in the claimed invention."). In particular, Appellant contends, as described in the Specification, "the data obtained at operation 205 may be processed by one or more external computational assets to perform a control optimization to generate optimized path specific controls for the prescribed flight at operation 210." Id. at 12. In other words, "an optimization to calculate the path specific controls for the prescribed flight are performed (i.e., executed) 'off-board' of the particular aircraft's flight control and/or flight management system(s)," and "as clearly shown in Fig[ ure] 1 [ of Chan], the active trajectory 106 is stored in the aircraft processor, not a processor of an external computational asset." Id. at 11-12. 3 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that "[t]he comparator 118 of Figure 1 [ of Chan] at the external processing is interpreted to read on the claimed 'external computational asset."' Ans. 5; see also id. ( noting that Chan discloses both "onboard Comparator 110 and off-board ground (External Processing) Comparator 118"); id. at 6 ("Chan discloses external processing comparator 118 to perform ground calculations (See col. 10, lines 35-40)."). 2 Appellant does not apprise us of error. See Reply Br. 2-3. 3 Citing to page 8 of the Final Office Action, Appellant contends the "Examiner asserts that the claimed path specific controls are being interpreted with the broadest reasonable interpretation, to not only include flight plan data, but path specific controls as well." Appeal Br. 12; Final Act. 8. 4 However, accordingto Appellant, "modifying [the] flight plan where there are differences is not same as any control optimization which can generate optimized controls" i.e., "merely modifying [the] flight plan is not [the] same as generating optimized controls" and "transmitting the entire flight plan requires large bandwidth compared to merely transmitting path specific controls." Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellant suggests that as "the flight plan and path specific controls are two different things," and that "the question is whether Chan suggests transmitting the optimized path specific controls from the external computational asset to the aircraft." Id. As an initial matter, claim 1 recites nothing about "transmitting the entire flight plan requir[ing] large bandwidth compared to merely transmitting path specific controls." See Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 2 Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), dated Apr. 25, 2018. 3 Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed June 18, 2018. 4 Final Office Action ("Final Act."), dated Sept. 26, 2017. 4 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 14, Claims App.; Final Act. 8-9; In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Moreover, we note that Appellant's Specification describes that "[i]n some embodiments, the optimized path specific controls sent to the aircraft via the uplink may be configured or packaged as a complete profile (i.e. ,flight plan) that can be readily processed for guidance by the particular aircraft." Spec. ,r 32 ( emphasis added). Thus, based on this disclosure in Appellant's Specification, the Examiner's interpretation that Chan's optimized flight plan meets the recited optimized path specific controls is reasonable. In addition, for the claim step of "transmitting the optimized path specific controls via a communication uplink from the external computational asset to the particular aircraft," the Examiner finds Chan "discloses a 'modification for the aircraft flight plan is coded into CPD LC message 120b and uplinked to the aircraft through CPD LC command uplink module 126[,]' (col. 10, lines 52-54)[,] which is interpreted to uplink an optimized flight plan." Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, Chan discloses "an external off board processor (Comparator 118, FIG. 1)[,] which obtains active trajectory via Trajectory Downlink 112 and processes a synchronized trajectory. Consequently, a Flight Plan 120, from the external processing, is uplinked [transmitted] (via CPD LC Uplink 126) to the Flight Plan 104 on the aircraft." Ans. 3; see also id. at 4, 7 ("[T]he comparator 118 further processes comparison checks for trajectory compliance and uplinks [transmits] new flight plan 120 from the ground, via CPDLC Command Uplink 126, to onboardFlight Plan 104 (FIG. 1 and col. 10, 35-54). "); Final Act. 3. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of 5 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 the optimized path specific controls being transmitted, consistent with Appellant's Specification, the Examiner's fmdings are reasonable and supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error. The Examiner also fmds that the flight plan of Chan "discloses to also include trajectories that are modified or re-computed as necessary" and that "trajectories are suspended from being uplinked to the aircraft if the counter exceeds a threshold (See col. 11, lines 14-16) as well as taking into consideration separation from other aircraft, convective weather, conflict with a special use airspace, or schedule change ( col. 11, lines 34-3 7)." Final Act. 8. The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan "would know that the disclosed trajectories would suggest path specific controls (See col. 11, lines 44-64) and at the very least, modifying the speeds and accelerations of the trajectories ( col. 8, lines 3-9)." Id. Appellant does not apprise us of error with respect to this fmding. See Appeal Br. 9-13; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant contends that "the Examiner has not provided any particular citation of Chan ... to suggest the recitation of a control optimization to generate optimized path specific controls" and that "the optimization in the pending claim is being done to minimize direct operating cost of a prescribed flight ( see pending claim 1 ). Thus, merely modifying [the] flight plan is not same as generating optimized controls for minimizing direct operating cost of the prescribed flight." Reply Br. 2. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner fmds that Chan discloses "a control optimization to generate optimized path specific controls for the prescribed flight ( 106, 116; FIG. 1 and col. 9, lines 29-44 ). " Appellant does not apprise us of error with respect to this fmding. See Appeal Br. 9-13; see 6 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 also Reply Br. 2-3. In addition, as discussed above, Appellant's Specification describes that "[i]n some embodiments, the optimized path specific controls sent to the aircraft via the uplink may be configured or packaged as a complete profile (i.e.,jlight plan) that can be readily processed for guidance by the particular aircraft." Spec. ,r 32 ( emphasis added). Moreover, as pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 7, citing Chan 8:42--45), Chan discloses under"[ c ]onformance monitoring" that "as the flight progresses, a number of situations may arise that result in loss of synchronization" including "velocity variance due to cost index" and "[fJor this reason, it may be necessary that the ground system checks the sensed position reports provided by the surveillance system against the active trajectory and in cases of out of conformance detections, corrections may be applied to the active trajectory." See Chan 8:38--48; see also Final Act. 2 ( citing Chan 9:61---65). Appellant does not apprise us of error with respect to this fmding. See Appeal Br. 9-13; see also Reply Br. 2-3. In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as anticipated by Chan. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2-7 and 10-21, which fall with claim 1. Claim 9 In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the frrst time that "claim 9 specifically states that control commands include speed command[ s ]" and that "Chan specifically does not disclose transmitting speed command from external processing and element 126." Reply Br. 3. 7 Appeal2018-007000 Application 15/282,003 We need not consider untimely new arguments presented in a Reply Brief that are not accompanied by a showing of good cause why they could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.41 (b )(2); Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476-77 (BP AI 2010) (informative). Nonetheless, we address Appellant's argument below as a matter of adjudicative economy. For claim 9, the Examiner finds that at "col. 8, lines 3-9, [Chan discloses] where the uplinked trajectories [ from the ground/ external system including ground comparator 118] include modifying speeds and accelerations." Final Act. 9; see also id. at 5---6; Chan 8 :8-9 ( discussing that "alternatives may be used to set the speeds and accelerations, depending on the available data in the FMS trajectory."). Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or argument apprising us of error with respect to this fmding. See Reply Br. 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Chan. DECISION We AFFIRM the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 9- 21 as anticipated by Chan. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8