DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed 1/27/2025
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 have been amended
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 11/9/2022 and 4/1/2024 have been reviewed and considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 1/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the claims amount to the construct of a particular user interface for facilitating improved user interaction in the field of aircraft taxiing.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 1/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject or pre-Al A 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA )for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior a rt relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior a rt.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior a rt and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobvious ness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek et al. (US 20130103297, hereinafter Bilek, already of record from IDS) in view of ALONSO (US 20170148333, hereinafter ALONSO), and further in view of Holder et al. (US 2020/0168104, hereinafter HOLDER)
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Bilek discloses a system and a method for displaying taxi information on an aircraft, the system and the method comprising (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1; Abstract):
a display device;
a data base including taxiing route data, the taxiing route data comprising a plurality of taxiing
routes associated with taxiways and runways at an airport;
a communication system configured to receive the taxiing route data from the data base (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1, display device 102, data storage element 118, communications system 110; Para. 0020, 0024); and
at least one processor in operable communication with the display device and the
communication system, the at least one processor configured to execute program instructions, wherein
the program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1, processing system 106, communications system 110, display device 102; Para. 0048):
receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026);
receive the taxiing route data from the data base through the communication system (See at least Bilek: Para. 0024, 0026);
analyze the taxiing route data to determine whether modification to the assigned taxiing route is necessary due to the assigned taxiing route being incomplete or due to an occurrence of an event that affects the assigned taxiing route (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, 0028);
in response to the determination that modification of the assigned taxiing route is necessary, determine possible taxiing routes from the taxiing route data based on conditions of the aircraft (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, 0028, 0031);
predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes (See at least Bilek: Para. 0032);
generate a display for the dis play device including … a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the dis play device (See at least Bilek: Para. 0032); and ...
Although Bilek already discloses displaying preferential taxiing routes on the display device, Bilek does not explicitly disclose: receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, ALONSO teaches: receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes (See at least ALONSO: Para. 0106).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying user selectable taxiing routes of ALONSO to the system and the method in Bilek would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would improve user experience by involving use' s interaction with the display device.
Although the combination of Bilek and Alonso disclose the generation of selectable taxiing routes, it does not disclose that the selectable taxiing routes are a selectable icon including said route information.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Holder teaches that the one or more preferential routes may be a selectable icon and that the preferential routes can be displayed in response to a user selecting the selectable icon (Holder Fig. 9, [0098], presentation of deviation recommendations as selectable elements).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying the selectable icons of the interactive interface of Holder to the combined system and the method of Bilek and ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved user interface for facilitating route selection.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the taxiing route data includes standardized taxiing routes (See at least Bilek: Para. 0020, standardized taxiing routes information).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to dynamically predict the preferential taxiing routes from the possible taxiing routes based on past, recent, and present conditions stored in the taxiing route data (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, dynamically predict to ensure taxi path information is up to date, it is obvious for a skill in the art to gather information from past, recent, and present; Para. 0028; Para. 0032, preferential taxiing routes from the possible taxiing routes).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the database includes data sets that each include start locations, destination locations, cleared taxiways, and hold shorts (See at least Bilek: Para. 0020, regular information of an airport for a skill in the art).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the possible taxiing routes from the taxiing routes of the taxiing routes data based on conditions of the aircraft that include a position of the aircraft, a heading of the aircraft, and a ground speed of the aircraft (See at least Bilek: Para. 0022, 0029, ground speed of aircraft is a common data associated with aircraft for a skill in the art).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO and Holder as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Marik et al. (US 2019/0189018, hereinafter Marik).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Although Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches database of taxiing routes, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder does not explicitly teach: wherein the taxiing route data includes historical taxiing routes of the aircraft and other aircraft, wherein the historical taxiing routes are used, at least in part, to predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Marik teaches:
wherein the taxiing route data includes historical taxiing routes of the aircraft and other aircraft, wherein the historical taxiing routes are used, at least in part, to predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes (See at least Marik: Para. 0021-0022, 0024, 0026-0027).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying historical taxiing routes of Gannon to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would provide historical reference information that users can look up to.
Claim)s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO and Holder as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2015/0298817, here in after Jackson).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder does not explicitly teach: wherein the taxiing route includes Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data.
However, in the similarfield of endeavor, Jackson teaches: wherein the taxiing route includes Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data (See at least Jackson: Para. 0028).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying ADS-B data of Jackson to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would be able to receive data from varies sources.
Claim)s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO and Holder as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Oliveira et al. (US 20210103860, here in after Oliveira).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder does not explicitly teach: wherein the taxiing route data includes NOtice To AirMen (NOT AM) data.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Oliveira teaches: wherein the taxiing route data includes NOtice To AirMen (NOT AM) data (See at least Oliveira: Para. 0062).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying NOT AM data of Oliveira to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would be able to receive data from varies sources.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO and Holder as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gannon et al. (US 20160140855, hereinafter Gannon, already of record from IDS).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder does not explicitly teach: wherein the processor is further configured to store the selected taxiing route in the data base.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Gannon teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to store the selected taxiing route in the database (See at least Gannon: Para. 0031, the most frequently used taxi clearance is maintained in the data storage element).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying storing the selected taxiing route in the database of Gannon to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would provide quick reference information to save time and effort.
Claim)s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO and Holder as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of SHORTER et al. (US 20160125741, hereinafter SHORTER).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilekfurther discloses: wherein the taxiing routes in the taxiing routes data are ranked by algorithm with predefined weight factors and the processor is configured to generate the display for the display device (See at least Bilek: Para. 0036) ...
Although Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder teaches to generate the display for the display device, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach: to include a visuaI element configured to be selectable to override the predefined weight factors for pilot customization.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, SHORTER teaches: to include a visual element configured to be selectable to override the predefined weight factors for pilot customization (See at least SHORTER: Para. 0079).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that applying pilot customization of SHORTER to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO and Holder would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would improve user experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABBY J FLYNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights