DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received remarks and amendments to the claims dated 03 July 2025 in response to Non-Final Rejection office action dated 03 April 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “prior action”, etc.).
Regarding the amendments received to the claim set, the examiner has reviewed the content and determined that no new matter was presented. Support may be found, for instance, on page 6 of the specification.
The examiner notes that a claim objection regarding claim 20 appears to have been mistakenly missed by the applicant, however a bona fide attempt to respond appears to have been made; the examiner will repeat the claim objection below.
Additionally, the claim interpretation as previously presented continues to apply, including 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the term “module”. See below.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for “mistake[nly]”, the examiner notes that this terminology has been removed from the claim set due to cancellation or amendment of the appropriate claims, and is therefore withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner previously identified concerns regarding human organisms, signals per se, and methods of organizing human activity. The examiner has reviewed the amendments made to the claim set and determined that all of the above concerns have been addressed. All outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner notes that arguments are moot due to amendments made to the claim set. The examiner reviewed the applicant’s remarks, noting in particular the rationale on pages 10-11 of the remarks file. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that “if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored…” is novel and non-obvious over prior art. While the examiner asserts that this is implicit in the teachings of references previously provided, new grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, are presented below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set may be found in the remarks filed dated 03 July 2025 in the file wrapper. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims. Claims 2, 8, 11, and 15 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding “obstruction” in claims 1, 3, 5, 16, and 17, the examiner notes that “obstruction” is being broadly interpreted to include routes where the specific type of aircraft may be too large/heavy to adequately support the route (see specification page [6]) rather than just obstacles in terms of static or dynamic objects sitting in a flight path.
Regarding “computer system” in claim 20, the examiner notes that this term is broad and, consistent with the specification on page 10, only includes an example of the system as being within a control tower or a facility.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“Taxi path verification module” in claims 17-20
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes that per the guidance of MPEP 2181.II.B that the examiner is interpreting the term “module” to include hardware or a combination of software and hardware.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20: Claim 20 recites “…external to an any aircraft cockpit.”, appearing to include a typo with “an any”. Correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa et al. (US 2022/0068149 A1; hereinafter Khatwa) in view of Agarwal et al. (US 2022/0343897 A1; hereinafter Agarwal) in view of Shamasundar (US 2018/0277116 A1; hereinafter Shamasundar) in view of Du et al. (US 2017/0103751 A1; hereinafter Du).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method) and 17 (system): Khatwa discloses A method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0067-0068] and Figure [5], Khatwa discloses a method) / A system comprising: a taxi path verification module including machine readable instructions configured to cause the taxi path verification module to: (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0070-0071] and Figure [1], Khatwa discloses a system containing components analogous to a generic “module” comprising programming instructions to cause the system to perform a method)
monitoring audio between a cockpit and air traffic control (ATC); (per claim 1) / monitor audio between a cockpit and air traffic control (ATC); (per claim17) (Paragraph [0026, 0070-0071] and Figure [5], Khatwa discloses monitoring voice communication between the flight crew/pilot and the ATC)
converting the audio to text [using a machine learning model], [wherein before converting the audio to the text, the audio between the cockpit and the air traffic control is checked for keywords relevant to taxiing, wherein the converting audio to text is performed upon detecting the keywords in the audio, wherein if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored for keywords and when the keywords are detected during continued monitoring the audio is converted to the text;] (per claim 1) / convert the audio to text [using a machine learning model], [wherein before converting the audio to text, the audio between the cockpit and the air traffic control is checked for keywords relevant to taxiing, wherein conversion of the audio to the text is performed upon detecting the keywords in the audio, wherein if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored for keywords and when the keywords are detected during continued monitoring the audio is converted to the text;] (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0026, 0071], Khatwa discloses converting audio to text by any suitable speech transcription software)
using the text converted from the audio [with the machine learning model] to generate a taxi path, wherein the taxi path is displayed on a cockpit display (per claim 1) / using the text converted from the audio [with the machine learning model] to generate a taxi path, wherein the taxi path is displayed on a cockpit display (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0021, 0024, 0026, 0044, 0051, 0071], Khatwa discloses that the taxi clearance information (speech to text) is used to determine a cleared taxi route for the aircraft to follow. The route is displayed on a cockpit display)
applying a look-up table (LUT) to the taxi path to check for obstructions in the taxi path; and (per claim 1) / apply a look-up table (LUT) to the taxi path to check for obstructions in the taxi path; and (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0026-0028, 0044, 0051, 0054, 0071-0072], Khatwa discloses that an aerodrome map database (considered a lookup table as it contains stored information) is used to determine if the aircraft exceeds a weight or wingspan limit or if a particular surface is closed to traffic (considered “obstructions” in the taxi path) for a current travel path (applying the database to the taxi path currently in use, for instance). Further, while the examiner notes that the database is considered a lookup table, Khatwa further explicitly discloses that a lookup table (in these exact words) may be used)
issuing a warning if there are one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT, wherein issuing the warning includes at least one of issuing an audio warning from a cockpit speaker or displaying the taxi path in a color that indicates the warning on the cockpit display; or refraining from issuing the warning if there are not one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT. (per claim 1) / issue a warning if there are one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT; or refrain from issuing the warning if there are not one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT; a cockpit speaker to issue an audio warning if there are the one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT; and an aircraft display to display the taxi path in a color that indicates the warning if there are the one or more obstructions in the taxi path based on the LUT. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0021, 0025-0028, 0044, 0051, 0054, 0071-0072], Khatwa discloses that if the aircraft deviates from the approved path (such as moving into a path that is not approved for the aircraft’s wingspan or weight or to a path closed for traffic), it alerts (issues warning) in a visual and/or auditory format. Khatwa discloses that if the aircraft travels in the wrong direction that the current taxiway (path) may be displayed (the display is a warning) as a red path. Khatwa further discloses an aural alert device to issue alerts to the pilot in the cockpit)
Thus, the difference between the disclosure of Khatwa and the claimed invention (as recited in independent claims 1 and 17) merely lies in the use of a generic machine learning module to convert speech to text and the use of a keyword check in order to proceed with the remainder of the process. The examiner submits that both of these are obvious variants of the disclosure of Khatwa, as further discussed below:
Regarding using a machine learning model, Khatwa is silent regarding using machine learning for conversion of speech to text.
However, Agarwal, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation and speech recognition systems, teaches wherein converting audio to text includes using a machine learning model. (Paragraph [0071], Agarwal teaches use of a machine learning model to convert speech to text)
Khatwa and Agarwal are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation and speech recognition systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the speech conversion of Khatwa using a machine learning model as taught by Agarwal for the benefit of making improvements to the speech recognition model (Agarwal, Paragraph [0071]).
Khatwa discloses converting speech to text, but does not explicitly disclose “keywords” that are used to conditionally start the conversion.
However, Shamasundar, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems and speech to text conversion, teaches wherein before converting the audio to the text, the audio between the cockpit and the air traffic control is checked for keywords relevant to taxiing, wherein the converting audio to text is performed upon detecting the keywords in the audio, wherein if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored for keywords and when the keywords are detected during continued monitoring the audio is converted to the text; (per claim 1) / wherein before converting the audio to text, the audio between the cockpit and the air traffic control is checked for keywords relevant to taxiing, wherein conversion of the audio to the text is performed upon detecting the keywords in the audio, wherein if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored for keywords and when the keywords are detected during continued monitoring the audio is converted to the text; (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0035] and Figure [2], Shamasundar teaches that speech is recognized and scanned for key words. If a key word is recognized, it is passed on for transcription (conversion to textual format). This occurs to recognize words spoken by ATC to an aircraft pilot such as for taxiing instructions. Shamasundar implicitly teaches that if keywords are not detected, to continue to monitor speech until a keyword is received, as speech data may generally be received more than a single time and if the speech data is not identified to have a keyword, the speech is not transcribed)
Khatwa and Shamasundar are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems and speech to text conversion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the speech to text conversion of Khatwa to include keywords as a trigger as taught by Shamasundar in order to identify messages of importance and discard any irrelevant/unnecessary data (Shamasundar, Paragraph [0035]). While Shamasundar does not explicitly teach (rather, it is implicit) that if no key words are detected, to continue to monitor incoming speech, Shamasundar teaches the identification of a key word as a check performed prior to further transcription in an analogous manner and should be generally understood that the system is not a one-time use system. The teachings of Shamasundar implicitly teach that speech may continue to be received and only perform an action (transcription) once a keyword is detected.
Du, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems and speech to text conversion, teaches if no keywords are detected the audio is continued to be monitored for keywords (Paragraph [0029-0034] and Figure [2], Du teaches that the process of detecting keywords prior to executing a task is a continuous process, wherein if no keywords are detected, the system merely moves back to the step of receiving audio data)
Khatwa and Du are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation systems and speech to text conversion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the speech to text conversion of Khatwa to include keywords as a trigger to perform an additional process and standby/continue to monitor if no keyword is received as taught by Du in order to identify if further action is required based on a certain keyword (Paragraph [0005-0006, 0025]). Merely using a keyword check taught by Du within a speech to text system as disclosed by Khatwa is considered an obvious variant in the interest of only performing processing actions when deemed necessary.
To summarize, the use of a machine learning model in speech to text is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by the teachings of Agarwal. Further, the use of a keyword check is also well-understood, routine, and convention in the art, as evidenced by the teachings of Shamasundar. While Shamasundar is not explicit in the ability of the disclosed system to continuously monitor incoming speech, this is implicitly taught. The teachings of Du are further relied upon to outline that a continuous system of monitoring for keywords in speech in order to perform a follow action are also well-known in the art. The examiner chose to continue to present the teachings of Shamasundar as Shamasundar utilizes the keyword check in an analogous manner to that of the instant application – to perform further text processing. While Du performs additional actions following identification of a keyword, the teachings of Du are relied upon to outline that it is will-known to have a continuous monitoring system that receives speech input and identifies keywords prior to proceeding with a process.
Regarding claim 3: Khatwa further discloses wherein using the LUT to check for obstructions in the taxi path includes correlating the taxi path with flight log information to check for obstructions in the taxi path. (Paragraph [0026-0028, 0054, 0071-0072], Khatwa discloses that if the aircraft deviates from the approved path (such as moving into a path that is not approved for the aircraft’s wingspan or weight or to a path closed for traffic), it alerts (issues warning) in a visual and/or auditory format. “Flight log information” is broad and reasonably includes that of the aircraft location, trajectory, or specifics/type such as weight and wingspan. Therefore, the path is correlated with the aforementioned variables to identify if the plane is going in a direction/on a surface that it is not approved to travel)
Regarding claim 4: Khatwa further discloses wherein the flight log information includes a list of taxiways for an airport where the taxi path is located. (Paragraph [0054, 0067], Khatwa discloses that aerodrome mapping data includes the status of a plurality of taxiways, thus having a “list” of taxiways)
Regarding claim 5: Khatwa further discloses wherein the flight log information includes an aircraft type, wherein checking for obstructions includes determining if the taxi path includes obstructions for the aircraft type. (Paragraph [0019, 0067-0068, 0071], Khatwa discloses that the system includes determining if the aircraft exceeds a certain limit (such as wingspan or weight) for a particular travel path. The wingspan and weight of the aircraft are considered an “aircraft type”, as “type” is generic and reasonably includes a differentiating feature of aircrafts, such as weight or wingspan)
Regarding claim 6: Khatwa further discloses wherein issuing the warning includes displaying the taxi path in red on the cockpit display. (Paragraph [0044, 0051], Khatwa discloses that if the aircraft travels in the wrong direction that the current taxiway (path) may be displayed (the display is a warning) as a red path)
Regarding claim 7: Khatwa further discloses wherein displaying the taxi path in red includes displaying the taxi path in red on a map displayed on an electronic flight bag (EFB). (Paragraph [0021, 0044, 0051, 0053], Khatwa discloses that the display device may reasonably include an electronic flight bag (EFB). Therefore, the display of red paths is disclosed to occur on an EFB)
Regarding claim 12: Khatwa further discloses wherein the audio includes words spoken by ATC to the cockpit. (Paragraph [0026, 0071], Khatwa discloses that the audio is taxi clearance information from the air traffic controller (ATC) in a voice format (speech))
Regarding claim 13: Khatwa further discloses wherein the audio includes words spoken from the cockpit to ATC, including words spoken from the cockpit to confirm a communication from ATC. (Paragraph [0026, 0071], Khatwa discloses that the taxi clearance information (via voice) also includes that of clearance entered by a pilot based on flight crew radio communication with ATC)
Regarding claim 14: Khatwa further discloses wherein the warning is issued in response to entering a taxi path not indicated by ATC. (The examiner notes that “mistakenly” is not given significant patentable weight, as first, the actual intent of a person may not be known and second, Paragraph [0026-0028, 0054, 0071-0072], Khatwa discloses that the alarm condition may occur if the aircraft enters a path that it is not approved to travel within (due to weight, wingspan, shutdowns, etc.). This occurs regardless of pilot intent, mistake or otherwise)
Regarding claim 16: Khatwa further discloses wherein the warning is issued for a taxi path that is open to some aircraft types but that includes fixed obstructions for an aircraft type of an aircraft being taxied by the pilot. (The examiner is interpreting “fixed obstructions for an aircraft type” to include weight or wingspan limits in paths, as this reasonably reads on “fixed obstructions e.g. obstructions that are a part of fixed airport infrastructure of the like” per page 7 of the instant application specification. Paragraph [0026-0028, 0054, 0071-0072], Khatwa discloses that the alarm condition may occur if the aircraft enters a path that it is not approved to travel within due to weight, wingspan, shutdowns, etc.)
Regarding claim 18: Khatwa further discloses wherein the taxi path verification module is incorporated in an electronic flight bag (EFB). (Paragraph [0024, 0044, 0051, 0053], Khatwa discloses that the display device may reasonably reside in/being incorporated into an existing system such as an electronic flight bag (EFB))
Regarding claim 19: Khatwa further discloses wherein the taxi path verification module is incorporated in an aircraft cockpit. (Paragraph [0021, 0024, 0044, 0051, 0053, 0070], Khatwa discloses that the display device may reasonably reside in/being incorporated into an existing system within the aircraft such as an electronic flight bag (EFB) or other device in the cockpit)
Regarding claim 20: Khatwa is silent regarding placement of the system in a component or location external to the aircraft cockpit.
However, Agarwal, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation and speech recognition systems, teaches wherein the taxi path verification module is incorporated in a computer system external to an any aircraft cockpit. (Paragraph [0043], Agarwal teaches that the system may reside in a remote computing system located on the ground (external to a cockpit))
Khatwa and Agarwal are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation and speech recognition systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included the possibility for the system of Khatwa to be implemented in a remote location as taught by Agarwal, as this is merely a design choice. One may be motivated to select a remote location to house the system in the interest of having a singular system/component rather than a plurality (one on each plane) for ease of maintenance or lower costs.
The examiner also notes that “external to an any aircraft cockpit” may also very easily be met, as “any” cockpit may be external to a computer system. However, the examiner aired on the side of understanding the intent of applicant and presented the above teachings.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa in view of Agarwal in view of Shamasundar in view of Du in further view of Khatwa et al. (US 2011/0184635 A1; hereinafter Khatwa ‘635).
Regarding claim 9: Khatwa discloses providing color indicators along a path to provide a display warning/message to an operator (Paragraph [0044, 0051]), but does not explicitly disclose a green path for when no obstructions exist.
However, Khatwa ‘635, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft taxiing assistance systems, teaches wherein refraining from issuing the warning includes displaying the taxi path in green on the cockpit display. (Paragraph [0077, 0082], Khatwa ‘635 teaches display of a cleared (no obstruction) taxi route in a green path format)
Khatwa and Khatwa ‘635 are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft taxiing assistance systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have included in the display of Khatwa a green path to indicate a cleared path as taught by Khatwa ‘635 in the interest of providing an operator aid.
Regarding claim 10: Khatwa ‘635 teaches a green path, as noted in parent claim 9.
Khatwa further discloses wherein displaying the taxi path in [green] includes displaying the taxi path in [green] on a map displayed on an electric flight bag (EFB). (Paragraph [0021, 0044, 0051, 0053], Khatwa discloses that the display device may reasonably include an electronic flight bag (EFB). Therefore, the display of colored paths is disclosed to occur on an EFB)
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2020/0202854 A1
METHOD , DEVICE AND SYSTEM FOR
DETECTING WORKING STATE OF TOWER
CONTROLLER
Lu et al.
Filed: 26 Nov 2019
Pub: 25 Jun 2020
Discusses continuous monitoring for keywords spoken between ATC and pilot.
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658