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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on November 17, 2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending. Claims 16-18 are new.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims on November 17, 2025 have not overcome the prior art rejections. Therefore the rejections are maintained and new prior art rejections are made for claims 16-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments on pgs. 7-11 regarding Claims 1 & 15, the applicant argues that Dwyer fails to disclose the ROAAS runway end as defined on pg. 9 of the arguments. The applicant further cites Dwyer which states that the endpoints 522 and 524 of Fig. 5 represents where the aircraft is expected to stop, which may appear on or off the assigned runway, and therefore does not correspond to a runway end. While the examiner agrees with the applicant’s analysis of the Dwyer, the examiner disagrees with the conclusion. Regarding the endpoints 522 and 524 of Fig. 5 which represent “where the aircraft is expected to stop”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner believes the rejection is sound with respect to the instant application’s limitation of “based on at least the landing distance available” due to the fact that the landing distance available is an inherent property of where the aircraft is expected to stop (e.g. if the landing distance available is 300 meters, the aircraft is expected to stop before the 300th meter), and while this could apply in instances where there is not sufficient physical runway, the art still applies for the instances which are still on the physical runway.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the new claims 16-18, the examiner agrees the non-final office action fails to disclose the claim limitations. However, the rejection has been updated in view of US 2024/0062664 A1, to He.
Remaining arguments are essentially the same as the ones addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for essentially the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0250224 A1, to Dwyer.
Regarding Claim 1, Dwyer discloses A system, comprising: a display (Dwyer [0017] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a display device 112); and
at least one processor, one or more of the at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display (Dwyer [0018] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a processor 104 which is in communication with the display device),
the at least one processor configured to: obtain runway overrun awareness and alerting system (ROAAS) data associated with an approach procedure being performed by an aircraft toward a runway (Dwyer [0018], Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the capability of communicating (i.e. obtain data) with a runway collision avoidance system),
the ROAAS data including information of a maximum ROAAS model distance (RMD) (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a distance required to landed an aircraft, 520), a nominal model distance (NMD) (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a second distance needed for landing a second type of aircraft (i.e. nominal model distance), 526), and
a ROAAS runway end (Dwyer [0028], Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the aircraft landing data which includes runway endpoints);
wherein the maximum RMD is a maximum predicted distance required for the aircraft come to a stop on the runway based at least on at least one current aircraft state (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the single segment of runway 520 which is representative of the distance needed (i.e. maximum predicted distance) to land the aircraft which is subject to a first predetermined parameter (i.e. one current aircraft state));
wherein the NMD is a predicted stopping distance from a runway threshold of the runway based at least on at least one of an aircraft performance of the aircraft, current environmental conditions associated with the aircraft, an in-air auto brake selection of the aircraft, or an on-ground deceleration rate associated with the aircraft (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a second distance needed for landing a second type of aircraft (i.e. nominal model distance), 526 which is subject to a second parameter such as a dry versus wet condition (i.e. current environmental conditions associated with the aircraft));
wherein the ROAAS runway end is an implied runway end based at least on a landing distance available according to at least one of a Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) or an airport database, wherein the implied runway end is position between a runway start and a physical end of the runway (Dwyer [0017], [0029], Fig. 1 & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses determining the runway end, 524, which is positioned between the runway start, 522, and the physical end of the runway and is based on information from navigation databases (i.e. airport database), 106);
generate a view of an airport moving map (AMM) having a map range, the view being an overhead view, the AMM depicting a location of the aircraft relative to the runway, the runway, a maximum RMD indicator on the runway, an NMD indicator on the runway, and a ROAAS runway end indicator (Dwyer [0028]-[0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses rendering an airport map, 302, on a display which includes all of an overhead view, a range, location of aircraft, a maximum predicted distance on a runway 520, a nominal model distance 526, and a runway end indicator 522 or 524);
wherein the maximum RMD indicator is an indicator associated with the maximum RMD; wherein the NMD indicator is an indicator associated with the NMD (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the single segment of runway 520 which is representative of the distance needed (i.e. maximum predicted distance) to land the aircraft which is subject to a first predetermined parameter (i.e. one current aircraft state);
wherein the ROAAS runway end indicator is an indicator associated with the ROAAS runway end (Dwyer [0017], [0029], Fig. 1 & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses determining the runway end, 522 or 524, based on information from navigation databases (i.e. airport database), 106); and
output the view of the AMM as graphical data (Dwyer [0028]-[0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses displaying the rendering of an airport map, 302, on a display which includes all of an overhead view, a range, location of aircraft, a maximum predicted distance on a runway 520, a nominal model distance 526, and a runway end indicator 522 or 524);
wherein the display is configured to display the view of the AMM to a user (Dwyer [0028]-[0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses rendering an airport map, 302, on a display to a user ,109, which includes all of an overhead view, a range, location of aircraft, a maximum predicted distance on a runway 520, a nominal model distance 526, and a runway end indicator 522 or 524).
Regarding Claim 7, Dwyer, as shown above, discloses The system of claim 1,
Dwyer further discloses wherein the at least one current aircraft state comprises at least one of a ground speed or a glidepath deviation (Dwyer [0021], Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the aircraft performance data including aircraft speed (i.e. ground speed)).
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Dwyer, as shown above, discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to the airport database (Dwyer [0020] & [0027], Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the navigational databases (i.e. airport database), 106, which includes landing distance data).
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 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.
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.
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 5-6 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being rendered obvious over US 2007/0250224 A1, to Dwyer.
Regarding Claim 5, as shown above, Dwyer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the map range of the AMM is between 1,000 feet and 6,000 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined set a particular map range so the user can see the most necessary surface area of the airport as possible since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 6, as shown above, Dwyer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the map range of the AMM is between 2,000 feet and 4,000 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined set a particular map range so the user can see the most necessary surface area of the airport as possible since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9, Dwyer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the user is located offboard of the aircraft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put the user of the display offboard the aircraft as to monitor airport landings from a tower, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 10, Dwyer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the user is located onboard of the aircraft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put the user of the display onboard the aircraft as to allow the pilot to see the geography and conditions surrounding the airport and runways, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0250224 A1, to Dwyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0275020 A1, to Charbonnier et al., hereafter Charbonnier.
Regarding Claim 8, Dwyer, as shown above, discloses The system of claim 1,
Dwyer further discloses wherein the NMD is the predicted stopping distance from the runway threshold of the runway based at least on the aircraft performance of the aircraft (Dwyer [0030], Examiner Note: Since the second segment (i.e. NMD), 526, is dependent on a second type of aircraft, different from the first type of aircraft associated with the first segment, 520, the performance of the aircraft is inherently considered in the NMD), the current environmental conditions associated with the aircraft (Dwyer [0030] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a second distance needed for landing a second type of aircraft (i.e. nominal model distance), 526 which is subject to a second parameter such as a dry versus wet condition (i.e. current environmental conditions associated with the aircraft),
However, Dwyer does not specifically disclose the in-air auto brake selection of the aircraft, and the on-ground deceleration rate associated with the aircraft.
Charbonnier, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the in-air auto brake selection of the aircraft, and the on-ground deceleration rate associated with the aircraft (Charbonnier [0009], Examiner Note: Charbonnier teaches referring to US 8275501 B1, to Villaume, refers to a decision point in which to determine if the aircraft can land based both on auto brakes and ground spoilers (i.e. on-ground deceleration rate)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the Airport moving Map system of Dwyer with the decision point calculation of Charbonnier in order to warn the crew that it could perform a go-around maneuver rather than have a catastrophic landing (Charbonnier [0005]).
Claims 2-4, & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0250224 A1, to Dwyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0060551 A1, to Khatwa.
Regarding Claim 2, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Dwyer does not specifically disclose the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the aircraft has reached a predetermined height above a ROAAS threshold for the runway during the approach procedure; and in response to the determination that the aircraft has reached the predetermined height above the runway, output the view of the AMM as the graphical data.
Khatwa, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the aircraft has reached a predetermined height above a ROAAS threshold for the runway during the approach procedure; and in response to the determination that the aircraft has reached the predetermined height above the runway, output the view of the AMM as the graphical data (Khatwa [0082], Examiner Note: Khatwa teaches one of the conditions for generating a runway alert is if the aircraft is sufficiently close to landing on the destination runway (e.g. the aircraft being between 750 and 300 feet above the airport elevation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the Airport moving Map system of Dwyer with the activation of the system below a certain height of Khatwa in order to improve flight crew awareness of the position of the aircraft relative to the runway end during low visibility conditions (Khatwa [0009]).
Regarding Claim 3, as shown above, Dwyer in view of Khatwa teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the predetermined height is between 300 feet and 1,500 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined height to a particular range in order to alert the users to the approaching runway at a particular point in the landing process since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 4, as shown above, Dwyer in view of Khatwa teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the predetermined height is between 600 feet and 1,000 feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the predetermined height to a particular range in order to alert the users to the approaching runway at a particular point in the landing process since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Dwyer does not specifically disclose …and a synthetic vision system (SVS) computing device…
Khatwa teaches and a synthetic vision system (SVS) computing device (Khatwa [0073], Examiner Note: Khatwa teaches the airport moving map having the capability to be a part of a synthetic vision system (SVS))…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the Airport moving Map system of Dwyer with the synthetic vision system of Khatwa in order to provide methods and system to improve situational awareness concerning operations around an airport that are sensitive to the operational process (Khatwa [0019]).
Dwyer in view of Khatwa teaches the claimed invention except for further comprising: a display unit computing device comprising the display and at least one first processor of the at least one processor; a ROAAS computing device comprising at least one second processor of the at least one processor, wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute a ROAAS application;… comprising at least one third processor of the at least one processor, wherein the at least one third processor is configured to execute an AMM application. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple processors in order to have sufficient processing power, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 12, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 11, further comprising a router computing device, wherein the display unit computing device, the ROAAS computing device, and the SVS computing device are communicatively coupled via the router computing device, wherein the display unit computing device, the ROAAS computing device, the SVS computing device, and the router computing device are onboard the aircraft (Dwyer [0018] & Fig. 1, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a communication bus, 114, to connect all the devices including a display and various computing devices. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have recognized communication bus and router as obvious variants since the function of both connecting wired and wirelessly are well-known to be the same.
Regarding Claim 13, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the display unit computing device is an adaptive flight display (AFD) onboard the aircraft, wherein the at least one first processor of the AFD is configured to execute a flight display system application (FDSA) (Dwyer [0026] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses a vertical situation display of an airport map (i.e. adaptive flight display) which changes based on new information obtained. Since it is an updating display, the display must be running an application (i.e. flight display system application)).
Regarding Claim 14, Dwyer discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the display unit computing device is offboard of the aircraft, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to put the user of the display offboard the aircraft as to monitor airport landings from a tower, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0250224 A1, to Dwyer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0062664 A1, to He et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 1,
However, Dwyer does not specifically disclose wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to the Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM).
He, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to the Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) (He [0060], Examiner Note: He teaches the ROAAS determining overrun alerts based on landing distance derived from the NOTAM).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the Airport moving Map system of Dwyer with NOTAM landing distance of He in order to provide the flight crew with prior knowledge of the current runway surface conditions during landing (He [0002]).
Regarding Claim 18, Dwyer discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to…the airport database (Dwyer [0020] & [0027], Examiner Note: Dwyer discloses the navigational databases (i.e. airport database), 106, which includes landing distance data)
However, Dwyer does not specifically disclose wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to the Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) …
He teaches wherein the ROAAS runway end is the implied runway end based at least on the landing distance available according to the Notice to Air Mission (NOTAM) (He [0060], Examiner Note: He teaches the ROAAS determining overrun alerts based on landing distance derived from the NOTAM)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the Airport moving Map system of Dwyer with NOTAM landing distance of He in order to provide the flight crew with prior knowledge of the current runway surface conditions during landing (He [0002]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, ERIN PIATESKI can be reached at (571)-270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669