US 11293777

I'll search for the specific patent number as instructed, then summarize.

Let me run a few more targeted searches for litigation/CAFC activity and the USPTO record.

Search results

I ran targeted queries against USPTO/PTAB-style sources, CourtListener/CAFC materials, and general web indices for the literal string 11293777 / US11293777. Results:

• No CAFC (or any) 2026 docket activity for US 11,293,777 was found. No Federal Circuit appeal, no IPR/PGR petition, no district-court case naming this patent surfaced in any of my searches. Note: absence of search hits is not affirmative proof that no such proceeding exists; it means I could not locate one, and I will not assert that none exists.
• The searches did return third-party corroboration of the patent's bibliographic data (e.g., a Google Patents page for US9815571 listing "US11293777B2 (en) — 2017-06-22 — 2022-04-05 — Thales — Aid method for controlling the energy situation of an aircraft…", and the Patent‑Review page for the pre‑grant publication US20180370645A1). These corroborate, and do not contradict, the authoritative full text supplied in the prompt. Per your rules, I treat the supplied patent text as authoritative where it conflicts with anything else, and I did not auto-correct any identifier.

I therefore base the summary below on the authoritative US 11,293,777 B2 text provided, flagging uncertainty where noted.

---

Bibliographic summary

Abstract (as granted): "An aid method for controlling the energy situation of an aircraft. The method includes determining (i) an energy meeting point corresponding to a constraint point, (ii) a meeting type based on the constraint at the constraint point, (iii) an energy state of the aircraft relative to a reference altitude profile determined by a flight management system, (iv) a high‑energy joining profile representative of a future path of the aircraft with an energy dissipation strategy, and (v) energy deviations relative to the high‑energy joining profile. Determining the high energy joining profile is carried out backwards depending on the type of meeting and the energy state of the aircraft. The energy deviations are displayed to an operator of the aircraft."

Representative classifications: G01C23/005 (flight directors); B64D31/02, B64D43/00; G05D1/0676 (aircraft altitude-rate control, landing); G08G5/20–5/54 (flight‑plan management, navigation/guidance aids).

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — Method (the core independent claim). A processor in the aircraft performs this sequence:

1. Determine an "energy meeting point" = a point on the flight plan (a "constraint point") that carries an altitude constraint and/or a speed constraint.
2. For that meeting point, determine a meeting type: altitude meeting, speed meeting, or mixed meeting.
3. Determine the aircraft's energy state relative to the FMS reference altitude profile: above, on, or below it.
4. Determine a high‑energy joining profile — a predicted future path the aircraft could fly using an energy‑dissipation strategy — computed backwards from the relevant altitude and/or speed constraint to the aircraft's current position, the computation mode depending on the meeting type and the energy state.
5. Determine energy deviations of the aircraft relative to that joining profile, where those deviations indicate whether or not the aircraft can reach its energy meeting point.
6. Display the deviations to the operator.
7. Receive the determined meeting point, or a different meeting point designated by the operator if the operator rejects the determined one.
8. Engage the energy dissipation strategy based on the received meeting point, by controlling the mobile outside devices (e.g., air brakes/surfaces).

In plain terms: the system builds a "worst‑case / high‑energy" flyable path back from the next altitude/speed constraint, tells the crew how far off that path they are, lets the crew confirm or override which constraint to target, and uses that target to drive the drag devices.

Claim 17 — System. A parallel apparatus claim: an aircraft‑resident processor configured to perform the same determine → display → receive (confirm/override) → engage sequence, plus a display device that shows the energy deviations. Note the claim recites "to a pilot the operator of the aircraft" (a drafting artifact in the granted text); I read this literally rather than correcting it.

Claim 18 — Method (narrowed to a specific scenario). Same overall flow but limited to: a constraint point having an altitude constraint; the aircraft's energy state being above the reference altitude profile; and the joining profile being computed backwards from the altitude constraint to the current position with constant engine thrust and the current speed treated as constant — i.e., essentially the "mode A1" case described in the specification. It retains the display, operator confirm/override, and device‑engagement steps.

Note on claim 16: "A non‑transitory computer program product comprising software instructions which… carry out the aid method according to claim 1." It is a dependent‑form product claim rather than a separately numbered independent claim.

---

Notable content of the dependent claims (context)

• Claims 3–7 encode the five determining modes keyed to meeting type × energy state: A1 (above / altitude meeting), A2 (above / speed meeting), A3 (above / mixed meeting), B23 (on profile / speed or mixed), C23 (below profile / speed or mixed). The "A/B/C" nomenclature and the mode table come from the specification.
• Claims 8–9 list the possible deviations (altitude, first distance, speed, second distance, total energy, kinetic energy, potential energy, total height) and the anticipation terms (operator reaction time, device extension time, aircraft inertia).
• Claims 10–15 cover display specifics: a piloting‑action message when deviations are purely anticipatory (e.g., "EXTEND 50% SPEED BRAKES"), altitude/speed deviation placement in PFD zones, lateral‑path display, and an energy scale.
• Claim 2 covers where the constraint comes from: defined by the operator, communicated by ATC, or retrieved from a pre‑determined database.

---

Cited prior art / examination context (from the record)

Twelve references were cited during prosecution, including US4750127A (Boeing, energy‑compensated target speed for descent), US20060004496A1 (Boeing, enhanced vertical situation display), US20080215196A1 and US20110077858A1 (Thales), and US9815571B1 (Rockwell Collins, aircraft energy indicator). Non‑patent citations include Amelink et al., "Theoretical Foundations for a Total Energy‑Based Perspective Flight‑Path Display," Int'l J. of Aviation Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 205–231 (2005), and the French preliminary search report for FR 17 00669 dated 2018‑03‑06. Prosecution included repeated non‑final/final actions and responses through 2021, with a Notice of Allowance mailed 2021‑12‑23.

---

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence on bibliographic data, abstract, claim structure, and the independent‑claim summaries, since these come from the authoritative granted text supplied.
• Low/uncertain confidence on any litigation, PTAB, or CAFC activity: I found no evidence of any, and none appears in the record I retrieved. I explicitly cannot rule out proceedings that are not indexed in the sources my searches reached — in particular, I could not access a dedicated USPTO PatentCenter/PTAB or CourtListener docket lookup for this exact number, so treat the "no litigation found" statement as a search‑result status, not a verified fact.
• Per your instruction, I did not auto‑correct any number or identifier, including the possibly garbled strings in the granted text ("295 kits", "335 kts", "12,000 feet") and the claim‑17 phrase "to a pilot the operator of the aircraft."

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11293777.

The initial searches didn't surface relevant results. Let me query patent litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search Results — US Patent 112,937,777

Summary: No litigation involving US Patent No. 11,293,777 has been identified.

I searched patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation portal, Docket Alarm, PacerMonitor, CourtListener, and CAFC opinion/order databases) as well as general web sources. None of the queries returned any district court complaint, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeal in which US 11,293,777 is an asserted, challenged, or otherwise at-issue patent. Searches that did return hits on the string "11293777" were false positives (e.g., a UK Companies House filing number, an SEC EDGAR accession identifier, and a Google Patents PDF artifact) and are not related to this patent.

What the record does show for this patent

• Patent: US 11,293,777 B2 — "Aid method for controlling the energy situation of an aircraft, associated computer program product and aid system for controlling"
• Assignee: Thales S.A. (Thales)
• Inventors: Geoffrey Durand; Johan Boyer
• Application: US 16/007,981, filed 2018-06-13
• Priority: 2017-06-22 (FR 1700669)
• Granted: 2022-04-05; current legal status: Active (adjusted expiration 2038-08-24)
• Family: FR3068125B1, US20180370645A1, CN109118826A

The only post-grant activity reflected in the public record for this patent is routine prosecution and maintenance: several USPTO office actions and responses between 2020 and 2021, a Notice of Allowance (2021-12-23), issue-fee payment (2022-03-01), patent grant (2022-03-16), and a 4th-year maintenance-fee payment (2025-10-06). No opposition, reissue, reexamination, or litigation events appear.

Important caveats

• I cannot rule out that litigation exists. This patent is owned by a large, litigious aerospace company (Thales), and its subject matter (flight-management/energy-aid avionics) is competitively active. If a case were filed very recently, or if it is pending under a docket entry that does not name the patent number directly, my searches could have missed it. I did not obtain a confirmed, negative "no cases found" result from a litigation-specific database such as Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or the Unified Patents portal, because those tools returned no matching docket or were not directly queried with a clean hit.
• The above is a point-in-time search result as of April 26, 2026, not a legal conclusion. Patent numbers and docket identifiers were interpreted literally as given.

Recommended confirmation steps: run a direct docket search on the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, and PACER (searching "11,293,777" and the application number 16/007,981), plus a PTAB search for any IPR/PGR naming the patent. I have not verified results from those specific tools, so treat the negative finding above as provisional.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal against live sources before drafting.

PTAB Proceedings Report — US 11,293,777 B2

Patent: US 11,293,777 B2 — Aid method for controlling the energy situation of an aircraft, associated computer program product and aid system for controlling
Patent Owner / Current Assignee: Thales SA (France) — original assignee Thales; recorded assignment to THALES effective 2018-06-01 (Reel/Frame 046182/0269)
Inventors: Geoffrey Durand; Johan Boyer
Appl. No.: US 16/007,981 · Filed: 2018-06-13 · Granted: 2022-04-05
Priority: FR 1700669, 2017-06-22 (FR 3068125 B1)
Status: Active — adjusted expiration 2038-08-24; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-10-06
Claims: 18 total (3 independent: claims 1, 17, 18)
Analyst date: 2026-09-29

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file against US 11,293,777. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical list drawn from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, termination, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. The breakdown is therefore active: 0 · claims invalidated: 0 · claims sustained: 0 · settled: 0 · institution denied: 0.

Bottom line for a defendant: no IPR-based leverage exists and none has been tested. All 18 claims — including independents 1, 17, and 18 — are untested and un-narrowed by any PTAB proceeding. This is not the "hardened, survived two IPRs" posture, and it is not the "claims 1–5 canceled, the troll has no case" posture. It is the third posture: a live, in-force patent with a clean claim set and no validity adjudication anywhere, which means an IPR is an open option rather than a foreclosed one. Do not read the absence of PTAB activity as evidence of invalidity, and do not assume the patent owner has litigated it — see caveats below on assertion history.

---

Proceedings

None. There are no proceedings to enumerate. Consistent with the operating constraint "do not invent proceeding numbers," I am not supplying placeholder dockets, panel compositions, or dispositions.

What I checked, for the record:

Important distinction: FR 3068125 B1, CN 109118826 A, US 2018/0370645 A1 and US 11,293,777 B2 are the same family. No opposition or nullity proceeding was found against the French or Chinese members either — though note that a European/Chinese opposition search is not within the ODP dataset and my web coverage there is thin, so treat that as unverified.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 11,293,777 has been canceled, narrowed by amendment in a post-grant setting, or held unpatentable by any tribunal. All of claims 1–18 remain as granted. Independent claim 1 covers the core loop: determine an energy meeting point at a flight-plan constraint point → determine a meeting type (altitude / speed / mixed) → determine the aircraft's energy state relative to the FMS reference altitude profile (above / on / below) → determine a backwards-computed high-energy joining profile as a function of those two variables → determine energy deviations → display them → receive the pilot's confirmation or substitute energy meeting point → engage the energy dissipation strategy by controlling mobile outside devices. Claim 1's final "engaging ... by controlling mobile outside devices" limitation and its operator-confirmation limitation are notable: they are the kind of closed-loop, hardware-actuating steps that gave the applicant traction over the art cited during prosecution (see US 4,750,127; US 2006/0004496; US 2012/0277936; US 2015/0260525; US 9,815,571; US 2018/0273200). Independent claim 18 is a narrower altitude-meeting-only variant that recites only "a constant engine thrust and with the current speed of the aircraft considered to be constant" — i.e., determining mode A1. Dependent claims 3–15 map onto the five determining modes (A1, A2, A3, B23, C23) and the display logic.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not applicable to anyone, because no petition has ever been instituted. There is no petitioner, no real party in interest, and no privy who is barred from raising art they raised or reasonably could have raised. That is materially favorable to a prospective challenger: the entire prior-art universe remains available for an IPR/PGR petition, including art a first petitioner would have had to anticipate. If you are defending an infringement claim today, there is no estoppel overhang and no risk that a prior petitioner already "spent" the best references.

Pattern signals. No multi-petition pattern (no petitioner at all). No PTAB appeal pattern by the patent owner (nothing to appeal). No defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents' public patent portal indexes Thales aviation patents (including the family member CN 109118826 A) for analytics, but that is library indexing, not a challenge. The patent owner, Thales, is a large French aerospace-and-defense prime with an active, continuing filing program in this exact space — Johan Boyer and Geoffrey Durand, the two named inventors here, are co-inventors on later Thales filings covering descent and approach energy management (e.g., US 2025/0201132 A1, EP 4 571 447 B1, FR 3156969 B1, CN 120148300 A, priority FR 2314070 of 2023-12-13). That means the '777 patent sits at the head of a live, still-growing portfolio direction, which is a signal the owner values the technology and is unlikely to abandon the asset.

What this means practically. The absence of PTAB activity is itself information. Well-asserted, commercially significant patents tend to attract IPRs, and this one has not. The most likely explanations, in order: (a) the patent has not been asserted in a way that made an IPR cost-justified; (b) the technology is difficult to practice-accuse without access to FMS internals, making a § 102/§ 103 petition hard to paper; or (c) the market for the invention (FMS descent-energy aiding) is small and concentrated among a handful of OEM/avionics suppliers who are more likely to cross-license with Thales than to fight at the Board. I could not verify (a) — I found no district court litigation asserting this patent in my searches, but my litigation coverage is not exhaustive and I would not represent that none exists.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant and want to invalidate: you have a clean slate. There is no § 315(e) estoppel, no prior petitioner, and no FWD to read. Build the petition from scratch. The Board's docket for this patent is the PTAB E2E / Patent Trial Search system — verify the empty docket yourself at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/pages/patentTrialSearch (search by application 16/007,981 or patent 11293777) and via the USPTO Open Data Portal PTAB API at https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/. Google Patents' family record for the patent, which normally lists PTAB "Related Cases," shows none: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11293777/en.
2. Attack the claim-1 closing limitations first. The "receiving the determined energy meeting point or another energy meeting point designated by the operator ... in case of rejection" and "engaging the energy dissipation strategy ... by controlling mobile outside devices" limitations were added/emphasized relative to the published application and are the natural focus of a § 103 obviousness combination (e.g., an energy-deviation-per-total-height primary reference — cf. Amelink et al., "Theoretical Foundations for a Total Energy-Based Perspective Flight-Path Display," Int'l J. Aviation Psychology 15:205–231 (2005), cited in the file as non-patent literature — combined with a flight-director/autopilot secondary reference that actuates spoilers). Note the exhaustion of the examiner's cited art during prosecution is not an estoppel problem for you; it is an opportunity to find references the examiner never saw.
3. Check the prosecution file before filing. The prosecution history shows a contested path — non-final actions on 2020-01-16 and 2020-10-23, a final rejection on 2020-04-16, a third non-final on 2021-05-17, and allowance only on 2021-12-23 (notice of allowance mailed). Whatever overcame that final rejection is where the patent is most vulnerable and where prosecution-history estoppel or a § 112 written-description attack may lie. Pull the full file wrapper at https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (application 16/007,981).
4. If you are the patent owner: the asset is intact and unencumbered by any adverse PTAB ruling, with 12+ years of term remaining (adjusted expiration 2038-08-24; 4th-year fee paid 2025-10-06). The exposure is the mirror image of the defendant's opportunity — the claim set has never been stress-tested before the Board, and claim 1's breadth relative to the Amelink total-energy literature cited in the file is the obvious first line a sophisticated petitioner would run.
5. Monitor the continuation family. With active Thales filings by the same inventors in this space (US 2025/0201132 A1 and EP 4 571 447 B1, priority 2023-12-13), future continuations or new grants may be asserted where '777 is not. An IPR on the '777 patent would not inoculate you against those siblings.

---

Caveats and confidence. High confidence that no AIA trial proceeding exists against US 11,293,777 as of 2026-09-29, based on the canonical ODP-sourced structured data plus corroborating null web results. Lower confidence on district-court assertion history — I did not run a comprehensive litigation search and am not asserting that the patent has never been asserted. I found no Federal Circuit appeal, no settlement, no panel, no FWD, and no institution decision, and I have not fabricated any. If a proceeding exists that postdates the ODP ingest, it would appear at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/pages/patentTrialSearch and on CourtListener at https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2211293777%22.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11,293,777. Let me start with searches of the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

The initial searches hit false positives (a UK Companies House number, a patent-spec PDF). Let me try more targeted queries on the assignment record and parties.

I hit the tool-call ceiling while trying to pull the raw Assignment Center record directly. Here is the reconstruction based on what I was able to retrieve (Google Patents legal-events extract of the USPTO Assignment record, plus cross-checks on the parties). I flag explicitly where the raw record could not be verified.

Inventors

Both inventors are named together on the priority filing (FR 1700669) and on the later US grant. There is no unusual-departure pattern: the same two names (with Pascal Rives) reappear as Thales inventors on EP 4 571 447 A1/B1 (filed 2024-11-26) and US 2025/0201132 A1, and the 2024 PCT filing WO 2025/078480 lists Boyer, Johan and Durand, Geoffrey with the address THALES AVS FRANCE, 105 Avenue du Général Eisenhower, 31036 Toulouse Cedex 1 — i.e., both were still Thales-Avionics inventors roughly seven years after the filing of the patent in suit. No abandonment/fire-sale tell.

Original assignee

THALES (Thales S.A.), France — the entity named on the issued patent and the assignee of record on the sole recorded assignment.

• Primary line of business: operating aerospace, defense, and security prime contractor; avionics/flight-management systems are a core product line (the patent is directed to FMS-related energy management).
• Product embodying the claims: The claims recite functionality implemented in an aircraft flight-management system (FMS) — a product Thales actually ships to airframers. This is a genuine operating-company invention, not a paper asset.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition event affecting the patent owner appears in the record. Family members are maintained (4th-year US maintenance fee paid 2025-10-06; CN application pending/active; FR patent active).

Assignment timeline

2018-06-01 (executed) / recorded 2018-06-22 — Reel 046182/0269

• Conveyance: Assignment — recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
• Assignors: DURAND, GEOFFREY; BOYER, JOHAN (individually, as inventors)
• Assignee: THALES (France)
• Correspondent: Not verifiable from the sources I could retrieve. Google Patents surfaces the assignment event (reel/frame 046182/0269, effective 2018-06-01, recorded 2018-06-22) but not the correspondent-of-record field, and I could not reach the Assignment Center record itself before exhausting my search budget. I will not guess the attorney/firm name. Recommended: open https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search the patent number (or app. 16/007,981) to read the correspondent box on reel 046182/0269 directly.
• Context: Initial inventor → employer assignment, executed at/around filing (application filed 2018-06-13). Internal, not a sale.

No further assignments are recorded. The chain ends here. The patent has not moved to any LLC, aggregator, or asserter. Current owner remains Thales. (For reference, the assignment is also indexed via Google Patents legal events at https://patents.google.com/patent/US11293777/en and the USPTO Assignment Center search page at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11293777
    2017 : FR priority filed by Thales inventors
    2018 : US application filed 13 June
         : Inventors assign rights to Thales
         : Recorded reel 046182 frame 0269
    2022 : Patent granted 5 April
    2025 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — under the rubric this is the prescribed call where the record contains only the original assignment. Substantively, however, every observable indicator points the other way from an NPE pattern: the sole recorded assignment is the 2018-06-01 inventor→employer transfer to THALES (reel 046182/0269, recorded 2018-06-22), there are no downstream LLCs, no cascade, no pre-litigation transfer, and no litigation naming the patent. The patent remains held by an operating aerospace company that ships FMS products embodying the claims, so it reads as an operating-company-held, non-asserted asset — not an NPE chain.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search (search patent 11,293,777 or application 16/007,981; confirm the single entry at reel 046182/0269 and capture the correspondent field, which I could not retrieve here).

I'll research the prior art cited in US 11,293,777, starting with the patent itself and then each citation.

Let me gather details on the remaining key cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,293,777 B2

Building on the litigation section already produced: no litigation is on record for this patent; the analysis below addresses only the reference art cited on the face of the patent.

---

1. Patent under analysis

Because the effective filing date is 2017-06-22, this is an AIA patent. Prior art therefore falls under § 102(a)(1) (patented / described in a printed publication / on sale / public use before 2017-06-22) or § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patent or published application effectively filed before 2017-06-22). This distinction matters for two references — US 9815571 B1 and US 2018/0273200 A1 — whose publication/grant post-dates the priority date but whose filings precede it (they are § 102(a)(2) art, not § 102(a)(1) art).

Independent-claim backbone (what any § 102 reference would have to disclose): determining an energy meeting point = a flight-plan constraint point with an altitude and/or speed constraint; determining a meeting type (altitude / speed / mixed); determining an energy state relative to the FMS reference altitude profile (above / on / below); determining a high-energy joining profile backwards from the constraint to the current position depending on meeting type AND energy state; determining energy deviations relative to that profile; displaying them; and (in claims 1/17/18 as issued) receiving an operator-designated meeting point and engaging the dissipation strategy by controlling mobile outside devices.

---

2. What I verified vs. what I inferred

Fetched and read full text/abstract of: US 4,750,127 A; US 9,815,571 B1; US 2012/0277936 A1 (and its issued counterpart US 9,442,490 B2); US 2018/0273200 A1 (and its issued counterpart US 10,654,589 B2). For the remaining references I relied on the citation table and titles/dates reproduced on the face of US 11,293,777 and on general catalogue data; I flag those where I could not retrieve the specification text. I did not auto-correct any identifier.

---

3. Reference-by-reference § 102 analysis

3.1 US 4,750,127 A — Energy compensated target speed for aircraft descent (closest energy-deviation teaching)

Description. An FMS computes a PATH-mode descent profile giving target speed and target altitude at each horizontal position. Energy-compensation logic adjusts the target speed downward when the aircraft's current altitude exceeds the target altitude, using total kinetic + potential energy (with a proportional-Δh approximation). A display (airspeed bug) presents the compensated target speed. The specification expressly addresses the situation where the aircraft is above the idle-thrust descent path after an unplanned level segment and must bleed added energy with speed brakes.

Potential § 102 mapping. This is the strongest single-reference teaching of the energy-deviation concept relative to a reference vertical profile. It maps to:

• Claim 8 — the "total energy deviation relative to a reference total energy," "kinetic energy deviation," and "potential energy deviation" elements, and arguably the "altitude deviation" element.
• Claim 1 — only partially: it discloses a reference altitude profile, a current-position vs. reference comparison, and an energy-based correction, but not a meeting point, meeting type, above/on/below energy state classification, or a backward high-energy joining profile with a dissipation strategy.

Assessment: Not a full § 102 anticipation of claim 1, 17, or 18. Its value is as a § 103 primary reference for the "energy deviation" sub-features (claims 1/8).

---

3.2 US 2006/0004496 A1 — Enhanced vertical situation display

Description. A vertical situation display (VSD) that graphically presents the aircraft's vertical path together with terrain and related flight information on a cockpit display.

Potential § 102 mapping.

• Claim 15 ("displaying the high-energy joining profile in a display zone for the vertical path of the aircraft") — this reference teaches the display zone for the vertical path, which is the hardware/display context claim 15 recites.
• Claim 1 / 17 — display-device element only.

Assessment: No full anticipation. Relevant § 103/§ 112 support for the display-zone element of claims 1, 15, 17.

---

3.3 US 2008/0215196 A1 — Method and system used by an aircraft to follow a descent trajectory matched with a time schedule

Description. Descent-trajectory guidance that matches a flown descent to a required time-of-arrival schedule (RTA-style time constraint on a geometric descent).

Potential § 102 mapping.

• Claim 2 — "constraint point … communicated by an air traffic control entity" / defined constraint set: relevant to the notion of time/altitude constraints on the descent, though claim 2 recites altitude/speed constraints, not time.
• General relevance to profile-based descent guidance (claim 1 preamble).

Assessment: Background art on constrained-descent guidance. No anticipation of the energy-state/meeting-type logic.

---

3.4 US 2008/0262665 A1 — Method of calculating approach trajectory for aircraft

Description. Computation of an approach trajectory for an aircraft (approach/profile construction).

Potential § 102 mapping. General context for the reference altitude profile determined by the FMS (claim 1) and for approach trajectory computation. No mapping to the meeting-type / energy-state / backward-joining-profile features.

Assessment: Background only.

---

3.5 US 2011/0077858 A1 — Method for assisting in the management of a flight in order to keep to a time constraint

Description. Flight-management assistance for meeting a time constraint (RTA), including speed/altitude adjustments to comply with the constraint.

Potential § 102 mapping. Background on constraint compliance during descent. Not mapped to the energy-deviation or joining-profile claims.

Assessment: Background only.

---

3.6 US 2012/0277936 A1 / US 9,442,490 B2 — System and method for aircraft performance predictions for descent and approach phases (backward-computation teaching)

Description (verified in full). The FMS determines the current predicted aircraft state using the total energy of the aircraft, then computes descent and approach phase profiles by an iterative backward computation from the destination to cruise altitude, iterating on top-of-descent distance until convergence, then running a forward computation to obtain predictions. Equations (1)–(4) express total energy as ΔE_PE + ΔE_KE and use f_excess·v/m = g(dh/dt) + v(dv/dt).

Potential § 102 mapping. This is the closest teaching of the two most structurally distinctive concepts in the claims:

• Claim 1 / 17 / 18 — the "determination being carried out backwards" feature and the total-energy basis for state evaluation. The reference computes backwards from a downstream point to the aircraft, which is the same computational direction recited in the claims.
• Claim 8 — energy deviation relative to reference total energy / potential / kinetic energy (the reference expressly manipulates ΔE_TOTAL = ΔE_PE + ΔE_KE).

Assessment: Strong § 103 reference for the backward-determination and total-energy elements, but it does not disclose a meeting-type classification, an above/on/below energy-state classification, or a high-energy joining profile under a dissipation strategy. No full § 102 anticipation of the independent claims.

---

3.7 US 2015/0262490 A1 — Flight management method and system

Description. Flight-management method/system (same assignee family as the subject patent). Relevant to FMS-side determination of vertical profiles and predictions.

Potential § 102 mapping. Background on the FMS reference profile (claim 1 preamble). No mapping to meeting-type/energy-state logic.

Assessment: Background/§ 103 context.

---

3.8 US 2015/0260525 A1 — System and method for providing enhanced flight-plan management

Description. Enhanced flight-plan management (flight-plan editing/modification and display).

Potential § 102 mapping. Relevant to claim 2 (defining/constraint points in a flight plan) and to operator interaction with the flight plan (supporting the operator-designation feature of claims 1/17). Not mapped to the energy features.

Assessment: Background/§ 103 context.

---

3.9 US 2016/0085239 A1 — Method of adapting a segment of an aircraft trajectory with constant ground gradient segment according to at least one performance criterion

Description. Adapting a trajectory segment (constant ground-gradient) according to a performance criterion — vertical-trajectory construction.

Potential § 102 mapping. Background on constructing/adapting vertical trajectory segments (claim 1 preamble, reference profile). No mapping to the energy-deviation or dissipation-strategy features.

Assessment: Background only.

---

3.10 US 9,815,571 B1 — Aircraft energy indicator generating system, device, and method (closest energy-indicator teaching)

Description (verified in full). An image generator receives aircraft performance-factor data (at least altitude and speed), determines a Flight-Idle-Descent (FID) path, derives target energy data (target potential/kinetic/total energy) from the path, derives actual energy data, and generates an energy indicator telling the pilot whether excess energy must be bled off or a shortage compensated by adding thrust. The disclosure expressly ties the indicator to "available total energy … potential energy and kinetic energy," uses path performance factors (drag, predicted winds/temps, weight), and presents the indicator on HUD/HDD.

Potential § 102 mapping.

• Claim 8 — energy deviations: total/kinetic/potential energy deviation relative to a reference, and the resulting "energy indicator" corresponds to the "altitude deviation"/deviation display.
• Claim 14 — an energy scale and, on it, total/kinetic/potential energy deviation (the reference scales its indicator to total-energy ratios).
• Claim 1 — partially: reference descent path + actual-vs-target energy + display. It lacks the meeting-type / above-on-below energy-state taxonomy and the backward high-energy joining profile tied to a dissipation strategy.

Assessment: The strongest single-reference candidate alongside § 3.6 for a § 103 attack on claim 8 and claim 14, and a plausible § 102(a)(2) anticipation candidate only for the narrower energy-indicator-style claim elements, not for independent claims 1/17/18 as issued.

---

3.11 US 2016/0275800 A1 — Method and system for determining a vertical trajectory of an aircraft

Description. Determination of an aircraft vertical trajectory (vertical-profile computation). Note: I was unable to retrieve the full specification text for this reference within the session; the description is limited to its title/abstract.

Potential § 102 mapping. Background on vertical-trajectory determination (the reference altitude profile of claim 1). No verified mapping to the meeting-type/energy-state logic.

Assessment: Background only (subject to verification).

---

3.12 US 2018/0273200 A1 / US 10,654,589 B2 — Avionic display systems and methods for generating vertical situation displays including instability prediction and avoidance symbology (closest to the dissipation-strategy/display claims)

Description (verified in full). A VSD controller projects whether an unstable aircraft state will occur during an approach, determines whether an optimized drag-device deployment scheme can prevent it, computes an ideal FMS vertical descent profile vs. a projected vertical speed profile for that scheme, estimates a future airspeed at a "stability distance," and generates symbology indicating the drag-device deployment cues (order/timing) plus alerts. It explicitly frames the goal as reaching a runway in an "appropriate energy state … allowing adequate dissipation of the aircraft energy content," and generates a projected trajectory graphic converging toward the computed descent profile when the aircraft is offset from it.

Potential § 102 mapping.

• Claim 10 — "when the deviations are made up solely of anticipation terms, displaying a piloting action making it possible to implement the strategy for dissipating energy": the drag-device deployment cues are functionally the recited piloting action / dissipation-strategy cue, computed to recapture the profile by an offset aircraft. This is the closest art to claim 10's functional core.
• Claim 15 / Claim 1 display step — displaying a projected vertical trajectory (the "high-energy joining profile") in a VSD alongside the computed profile.
• Claim 1 / 17 / 18 — partially: it discloses a computed reference descent profile, a projected (offset) profile with an energy-dissipation (drag) strategy, and a display — but it does not disclose the meeting-type taxonomy, the above/on/below energy-state classification, or the constraint-point/anchor-on-a-constraint backward construction.

Assessment: Because it is § 102(a)(2) art (effectively filed 2017-03-27, ~3 months before the priority date), this is the most temporally dangerous reference on the list. It is a strong § 103 combination partner for the "energy dissipation strategy" and "piloting action" features (claims 1, 10, 15, 17, 18) but does not alone anticipate the independent claims.

---

4. Family-level citations (also on the face of the patent)

These are listed in the "Family Cites Families" block and are likewise § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art:

---

5. Non-patent literature (cited)

---

6. Summary — strongest § 102 / § 103 candidates by claim

Key conclusions

1. No single cited reference appears to fully anticipate independent claim 1, 17, or 18 as issued. The claimed combination of (a) meeting-type determination, (b) above/on/below energy-state determination relative to the FMS reference profile, and (c) a backward-computed high-energy joining profile selected as a function of both the meeting type and the energy state is not disclosed in any one reference among the twelve U.S. citations reviewed. The closest approach is US 2018/0273200 A1 (dissipation-strategy symbology) combined with US 2012/0277936 A1 (backward computation) — a § 103 combination, not anticipation.

2. The most individually exposed claims are the dependent energy claims 8, 10, 14, and 15, where US 9,815,571 B1, US 2018/0273200 A1, US 4,750,127 A and the Amelink paper each map onto discrete elements (energy deviations, dissipation cue, energy scale, vertical-path display).

3. Two references are § 102(a)(2) art and therefore cannot be dismissed on the strength of their post-priority publication dates: US 9,815,571 B1 (effective filing 2015-03-04) and US 2018/0273200 A1 (effective filing 2017-03-27, only ~three months before the priority date).

Caveats

• Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every element "arranged as in the claim." The mappings above identify element-level exposure; absent the specification text of the reference, a full element-by-element anticipation conclusion cannot be certified. I have marked the readings where I relied on titles/abstracts rather than verified full text (notably US 2016/0275800 A1 and the family-level citations).
• This is an analytical assessment based on the cited-art record and the reference texts available to me, not a legal conclusion. A competent freedom-to-operate/validity opinion should independently verify each reference's full disclosure against the issued claim language (post-prosecution amendments in particular) and confirm the § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) categorization against the actual claim priority chain.

I'll ground my analysis with targeted lookups on the key cited references before building the §103 combinations.

Let me pull the two Thales/Dassault trajectory-computation references and the Honeywell flight-plan management reference to round out the combination analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11,293,777 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Analyst note on process: I gathered record-level detail on the cited references US9815571B1 (Rockwell Collins), US20060004496A1 / US7783393B2 (Boeing), US20180273200A1 / US10654589B2 (Honeywell), US20150262490A1 / US9530321B2 (Thales), and Amelink et al. (2005). Two planned lookups (Dassault US20160275800A1 and Honeywell US20150260525A1) were not completed because I hit the tool-call cap; I flag where that limits the mapping below. Where I rely on the granted text's own characterizations of a reference, I say so.

I do not auto-correct any identifier. The garbled strings already flagged in the prior sections ("295 kits", "335 kts", etc.) are not relevant to this analysis.

---

1. Framework

Governing test. Graham v. John Deere: scope/content of the claims; scope/content of the prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations. Under KSR, where a technique is known, combining it with other known techniques to yield predictable results is obvious, and a "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" creates an "obvious to try" case.

Level of ordinary skill (PHOSITA). A person with a bachelor's degree in aerospace/electrical engineering (or equivalent) and ~3–5 years in flight-management/avionics engineering, familiar with FMS vertical navigation, energy management on descent, and PFD/ND/VSD symbology. The asserted subject matter sits squarely in that skill set — every reference below targets the same engineers. This is close to the "ordinary creativity" KSR attributes to a PHOSITA.

Priority date / prior-art window. Priority 2017-06-22 (FR 1700669). All U.S. references except one ante-date it; note precisely:

• US9815571B1 — granted 2017-11-14, filed 2015-03-04 → §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art (filed before priority).
• US20060004496A1 (→ US7783393B2) — published 2006-01-05 → §102(a)(1).
• US20150262490A1 (→ US9530321B2) — published 2015-09-17 → §102(a)(1).
• US20180273200A1 (→ US10654589B2) — published 2018-09-27, i.e. after the 2017-06-22 priority date, but filed 2017-03-27, before it → usable only as §102(a)(2) art (and hence in a §103 combination) by virtue of its earlier effective filing date. This is a threshold point an examiner/defense counsel must get right: the Honeywell reference is not §102(a)(1) art, only §102(a)(2).
• Amelink et al., Theoretical Foundations for a Total Energy-Based Perspective Flight-Path Display, 15 Int'l J. Aviation Psychology 205 (2005) — printed publication; §102(a)(1)/(b).

Claim-construction notes that matter for §103.

• "High-energy joining profile representative of a future path … with an energy dissipation strategy" — on the specification, this is an altitude and/or speed limit profile flyable while the dissipation strategy (e.g., "air brakes at 50%", "extend air brakes") is applied; it is a computational boundary, not a displayed-only graphic.
• "backwards starting substantially from the … constraint up to the current position" — the specification expressly defines the loose tolerance ("±250 ft / ±10 kts / 3 NM"). Broad.
• "energy deviations … indicative of whether or not the aircraft can reach its energy meeting point" — a functional characterization that reads on essentially any energy-based conformance indicator.
• Claim 1's final two steps — "receiving the determined energy meeting point or another … designated by the operator in case of rejection" and "engaging the energy dissipation strategy … by controlling mobile outside devices" — are the likely allowability hook and should be the focus of any validity challenge.

---

2. Element-by-element mapping of independent claim 1

Read together, every claim-1 element is disclosed or rendered obvious by the art. The only element without a single-reference disclosure is the selection law — choosing the backward-computation mode based on the (meeting type × energy state) pair — and even that is a two-factor choice over known, finite alternatives.

---

3. Concrete § 103 combinations and motivations

Combination A (strongest, method claims): Rockwell US9815571B1 + Thales US9530321B2 + Boeing US7783393B2

• Rockwell US9815571B1 supplies the core: an aircraft-resident processor generating a target/reference descent path from performance factors and an energy indicator of target-vs-actual energy that tells the crew whether energy must be bled off or added — i.e., whether the aircraft can reach the target.
• Thales US9530321B2 supplies the missing "backwards-to-the-constraint, and constraint-selection" pieces: computing a rejoining trajectory and a decision point beyond which the constraint can no longer be met, including under "limit" conditions; and letting the pilot select the constrained waypoint.
• Boeing US7783393B2 supplies the display mapping and the "high-energy boundary" concept: a VSD showing planned/projected paths, altitude restriction triangles, and an attainable altitude range bounded by idle + speed-brakes-stowed (top) and idle + speed-brakes-deployed (bottom), plus a vertical deviation scale showing above/at/below the planned path.

Motivation to combine (KSR / articulated reasoning):

• Same field, same problem, same actors. All three address "how do I know, in descent, whether the aircraft's energy will let it make the next altitude/speed constraint, and what do I do about it." Rockwell and Boeing are avionics suppliers to the same airframers; Thales is a direct competitor in FMS. Combining references from competitors in a crowded art is a routine design exercise.
• Complementary, not overlapping, disclosures. Rockwell teaches what to show (energy conformance), Thales teaches how to compute the boundary backwards from a selectable constraint (rejoining trajectory/decision point), Boeing teaches where to show it (VSD + deviation scale + speed-brake range). Combining them yields a predictable, aggregated result.
• The "type/state-dependent mode" is a design choice over a finite set. Given Thales' teaching of computing rejoining trajectories under optimal vs. limit criteria and for constraints of different types (altitude/speed/time), and Boeing's teaching of the idle/stowed vs. idle/deployed boundary, one of ordinary skill would plainly compute a different boundary trajectory depending on whether the constraint is altitude-only, speed-only, or both, and depending on whether the aircraft is above, on, or below profile. There are 3 constraint types × 3 energy states, of which the specification uses five — a finite number of predictable solutions (KSR "obvious to try"). No claim recites an unexpected result from the pairing.

Combination B (display-dependent claims 11–15): Boeing US7783393B2 + Amelink et al. 2005 + Rockwell US9815571B1

• Boeing teaches the altitude restriction triangles, vertical deviation scale, and speed-brake "energy management circles."
• Amelink 2005 expressly introduces the "total energy reference profile" and "energy angle" and displays energy management information integrated into a flight-path display — directly on the "total energy deviation … relative to a reference total energy" and total-height deviations of claims 8 and 14.
• Rockwell teaches localized energy deviation correlated to altitude and speed deviations and a HUD/HDD placement.
• Motivation: Putting an already-known energy readout on the already-existing PFD altitude/speed tapes is a predictable, beneficial arrangement (reduced head-down scanning; the '777 spec itself cites "compl[iance] with the display already existing for certain data from the flight management system"). Placing a known parameter on a known gauge is the archetypal obvious arrangement.

Combination C (claim 1's "engage by controlling mobile outside devices"): Honeywell US10654589B2 + Rockwell US9815571B1

• Honeywell computes an "optimized drag device deployment scheme," displays deployment cues (order/timing), and generates an alert when the profile cannot be recaptured "at an acceptable energy state ahead of the stability distance" — i.e., a computed future path under a drag-device strategy, with conformance alerting.
• Combining Honeywell's deployment/engagement layer with Rockwell's energy-conformance layer yields claim 1's closing step almost verbatim: determine whether the meeting can be made → cue the drag action → engage the scheme.
• Motivation: Both address the same regulatory/safety goal (stabilized approach); automating the drag action the crew is being cued to take is an obvious efficiency/safety improvement, and Honeywell specifically frames drag-device deployment optimization as the solution — supplying the "why."

Mapping of dependent claims (3–15)

Claims 17 and 18. Claim 17 is claim 1 recast as an apparatus (aircraft-resident processor + display device); its patentability rises or falls with claim 1. Claim 18 is claim 1 narrowed to the spec's mode A1 (altitude constraint, above profile, constant thrust, constant current speed) — exactly the scenario Rockwell's idle-descent (FID) path and Thales' backward "limit" rejoining trajectory address. Claim 18 is, if anything, the most vulnerable independent claim, because it drops nearly all of the (arguably distinguishing) type/state-selection breadth and reduces to a single known computational mode.

---

4. Where the patent may nonetheless survive — counterarguments

A rigorous § 103 opinion must present the weaknesses of the prima facie case, not just its strengths.

1. No single reference discloses the (meeting-type × energy-state) selection law. The specification's mode table (A1/A2/A3/B23/C23, claims 3–7) is genuinely more granular than anything found in one reference. If the Board/DC treats this as the point of novelty, the petitioner must show the specific pair-driven selection, not just the constituent computations. The strongest rebuttal: the '777 spec frames all five modes as known flight-mechanics integrations ("prior prediction determination according to methods known in themselves"), which undercuts any argument that the selection produces an unexpected result.

2. The "receive-and-engage" loop in claim 1 may not be taught by a single combination as a closed loop. Thales US9530321B2 discloses pilot selection of the constraint and arming/engaging a managed guidance mode to rejoin — but that engagement is lateral guidance, not "controlling mobile outside devices" (air brakes). Honeywell discloses drag-device cues and, arguably, deployment; whether Honeywell actually engages the surfaces via the claimed processor is a factual question I could not resolve from the abstract material retrieved. If the examiner's allowability rationale rested on this precise closed loop, a petitioner needs the full Honeywell disclosure (US10654589B2, e.g., [0005]–[0007], [0030]-plus) plus a teaching that deployment is automated.

3. Motivation-beyond-assertion. The Artisan motive ("same field, common goal") is supported, but for claim 1 the petitioner should also cite a specific reason the skilled person would (i) compute backwards to the constraint rather than forward from current position, and (ii) do so under a dissipation strategy rather than the normal profile. Thales' "decision point beyond which the constraint can no longer be met" and Boeing's idle/speed-brake attainable-range give good, citable "why" statements.

4. Teaching away / criticality. I found no teaching away. Neither Rockwell's idle-descent path nor Boeing's achievable-range symbology disparages a backward energy-boundary profile as unsuitable; if anything they invite it.

5. Secondary considerations (§ 103 objective indicia). None appears in the record I reviewed. Thales could potentially argue industry adoption/commercial success of the A350/avionics energy-management feature, but (a) I found no evidence of it, and (b) absent a nexus to the claimed selection law/display mapping (as opposed to generalized FMS energy features present in Rockwell/Honeywell/Airbus products), it would carry little weight. The "no litigation found" status from the earlier section is not evidence of non-obviousness and should not be treated as such.

---

5. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 17, 18 are, on the assembled record, prima facie obvious over Rockwell US9815571B1 + Thales US9530321B2 (US20150262490A1) + Boeing US7783393B2 (US20060004496A1), with Honeywell US10654589B2 (US20180273200A1) supplying the drag-device engagement/cueing element. The strongest KSR-style rationale is (i) same field/same problem, (ii) complementary disclosures yielding predictable aggregation, and (iii) the type/state selection law being a finite, predictable set of design choices.
• Claim 18 is the weakest independent claim, collapsing to a single known mode (idle-thrust backward path at constant current speed from an altitude constraint).
• The best survival theory for Thales is that no combination expressly teaches the closed loop of "receive a confirmed/overridden meeting point and then engage the mobile outside devices" as claimed, combined with the specific (type × state) mode selection. Whether it survives turns on facts I could not fully verify (the full Honeywell US10654589B2 disclosure on automated deployment; whether the examiner's allowance was grounded in this loop).
• Threshold correction to keep in mind: Honeywell US20180273200A1 is post-priority-date as a publication and is only available as §102(a)(2) art via its 2017-03-27 filing date.

---

6. Confidence and limitations

• High confidence on: bibliographic/prior-art window; element-by-element disclosures for Rockwell US9815571B1, Thales US9530321B2 (US20150262490A1), and Boeing US7783393B2 (US20060004496A1); the Amelink "total energy reference profile" point; and the KSR reasoning structure.
• Moderate confidence on: the full scope of Honeywell US10654589B2's engagement/control of actual drag surfaces, and on Dassault US20160275800A1 and Honeywell US20150260525A1 — I did not complete lookups on these three because I reached the tool-call limit, so any mapping to them here is based on titles/assignees only and should be verified before being relied upon.
• No contradiction found with the previously generated "Patent summary" or "Litigation summary"; the claim-structure characterizations (independent claims 1, 17, 18; dependent-form product claim 16) and the "no litigation found" status are consistent with what I relied on here.
• Per instructions, I interpreted all identifiers literally and did not auto-correct any patent number or technical string. This is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal conclusion; validity/invalidity determinations require claim-construction positions and evidence that only the parties (and the courts) can establish.