DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 12 February 2026.
Claim 1, 15, 20 & 24 have been amended.
Claims 13, 14, 21 & 22 have been canceled.
Claims 1-12, 15-20, 23 & 24 are currently pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 01, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112 (d)
The examiner acknowledges the amendments and the rejection is therefore withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
The examiner recognizes the amendment and to the independent claims and the arguments on page 7-9 and the rejection is therefore withdrawn.
35 USC § 102 and 103
The examiner acknowledges the amendment and arguments made pages 9-11 are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chenna et al. US 2016/0260335 A1 in view of Klamer et al. US 6,462,697 B1.
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.
Guo + Kwon
Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Chenna et al. US 2016/0260335 A1, hereafter Chenna in view of Klamer et al. US 6,462,697 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, Chenna teaches A system comprising: a position receiver; one or more processors for determining status for one or more runways at one or more airports (see at least Chenna P0023: Still further, at STEP 66, controller 40 obtains runway status data from RWSL system 22 (STEP 66, FIG. 3). As indicated above, the runway status data can be relatively comprehensive information describing vector data for all air traffic operating on the runway surface, along with runway and taxiway occupancy), the one or more processors configured to: detect, using the position receiver, one or more aspects of a plurality of aircraft in relation to the one or more runways (see at least Chenna P0029: For example, controller 40 can check for a runway conflict of occurring when the ownship A/C is about to or pending takeoff from a runway occupied by another A/C, a ground vehicle, or other object. P0032: Consider, for example, a first scenario wherein the ownship A/C is scheduled to land at a first runway, which crosses a second runway at which another aircraft is scheduled to land at approximately the same time. In this case, data from RWSL system 22 (FIG. 2), such as data indicating that RILs 31 located at the juncture of the crossing runways are currently illuminated, can be utilized to determine the potential runway incursion.,) and determine the status of the one or more runways based on the one or more aspects of a plurality of one or more aircraft in relation to the one or more runways (see at least Chenna P0023: Still further, at STEP 66, controller 40 obtains runway status data from RWSL system 22 (STEP 66, FIG. 3). As indicated above, the runway status data can be relatively comprehensive information describing vector data for all air traffic operating on the runway surface, along with runway and taxiway occupancy… For example, controller 40 may utilize the data gathered at STEPS 62, 64, and 66 to project the A/C position at a predefined future point and determine whether the future A/C position will coincide with any runway incursion zones or areas in which a collision could potentially occur with another A/C or ground vehicle) in response to determining that one of the plurality of the aircraft is on a taxiway and not cleared for movement on an active runway (see at least Chenna P0030: Alternatively, if determining that the designated runway is occupied or an incursion into the runway is imminent, controller 40 concludes a Runway Conflict Type 2 exists (STEP 98). Accordingly, controller 40 advances to STEP 70 of master process 60 (FIG. 3) during which controller 40 maintains engagement of the autobrake/aircraft brake mechanism 48 or initiates the brake mechanism 48 if not previously engaged. In so doing, autobrake system 20 prevents A/C takeoff until the designated runway is no longer occupied by another A/C or ground vehicle or otherwise subject to a runway incursion.), prevent the one of the plurality of the aircraft from moving onto the active runway (see at least Chenna P0030: Alternatively, if determining that the designated runway is occupied or an incursion into the runway is imminent, controller 40 concludes a Runway Conflict Type 2 exists (STEP 98). Accordingly, controller 40 advances to STEP 70 of master process 60 (FIG. 3) during which controller 40 maintains engagement of the autobrake/aircraft brake mechanism 48 or initiates the brake mechanism 48 if not previously engaged. In so doing, autobrake system 20 prevents A/C takeoff until the designated runway is no longer occupied by another A/C or ground vehicle or otherwise subject to a runway incursion.), and […], automatically operate controls of the one of the plurality of the aircraft to prevent the one of the plurality of the aircraft from moving toward the runway until the at least one other aircraft has landed and moved onto a taxiway (see at least Chenna P0030: Alternatively, if determining that the designated runway is occupied or an incursion into the runway is imminent, controller 40 concludes a Runway Conflict Type 2 exists (STEP 98). Accordingly, controller 40 advances to STEP 70 of master process 60 (FIG. 3) during which controller 40 maintains engagement of the autobrake/aircraft brake mechanism 48 or initiates the brake mechanism 48 if not previously engaged. In so doing, autobrake system 20 prevents A/C takeoff until the designated runway is no longer occupied by another A/C or ground vehicle or otherwise subject to a runway incursion.).
Chenna discloses determine whether the future A/C position will coincide with any runway incursion zones or areas in which a collision could potentially occur with another A/C or ground vehicle. Chenna does not explicitly teach in response to determining that at least one other aircraft is approaching the active runway to land within a particular time. However Klamer does teach the preceding claim language (see at least Klamer column 17, lines35-38: 8) an aircraft arrival on an occupied runway; 9) head-on traffic in which one aircraft is arriving and the other aircraft is moving towards the arriving aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Klamer to more accurately track and monitor aircrafts to avoid accidents such that future incursion events are avoided by the system.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the status of the one or more runways includes the active runway (see at least Chenna P0023: controller 40 may identify one or more types of runway incursion zones, such as the predicted incursion of the ownship A/C onto an active runway when taxying).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the status of the one or more runways includes an active arrival runway and an active departure runway (see at least Chenna P0023: controller 40 may identify one or more types of runway incursion zones, such as the predicted incursion of the ownship A/C onto an active runway when taxying, as described more fully below in conjunction with FIG. 4; or when the ownship A/C is in the process of takeoff from a runway subject to an incursion (e.g., due to occupancy by another A/C, a ground vehicle, or other object)).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the one or more runways include a plurality of runways, and wherein the one or more airports include one airport (see at least Chenna P0021: Airport database 52 is stored in a memory (not shown) and can include any store of information containing data describing the layout of airport surfaces, such as the runway locations and lengths (referred to herein generally as an “airport surface map”). In one embodiment, the airport database is included within a larger navigation database, such as an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (“EGPWS”) runway database. P0032: Consider, for example, a first scenario wherein the ownship A/C is scheduled to land at a first runway, which crosses a second runway at which another aircraft is scheduled to land at approximately the same time. In this case, data from RWSL system 22 (FIG. 2), such as data indicating that RILs 31 located at the juncture of the crossing runways are currently illuminated, can be utilized to determine the potential runway incursion.).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the limitations of claim 1 and the one or more runways include a plurality of runways, and wherein the one or more airports include a plurality of airport (see at least Chenna P0021: Airport database 52 is stored in a memory (not shown) and can include any store of information containing data describing the layout of airport surfaces, such as the runway locations and lengths (referred to herein generally as an “airport surface map”). In one embodiment, the airport database is included within a larger navigation database, such as an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (“EGPWS”) runway database. P0032: Consider, for example, a first scenario wherein the ownship A/C is scheduled to land at a first runway, which crosses a second runway at which another aircraft is scheduled to land at approximately the same time. In this case, data from RWSL system 22 (FIG. 2), such as data indicating that RILs 31 located at the juncture of the crossing runways are currently illuminated, can be utilized to determine the potential runway incursion.).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the limitations of claim 1 and wherein the one or more aspects comprise altitude, speed, and heading (see at least Chenna P0023: Further, at STEP 64 (FIG. 3), controller 40 determines the vector data of the ownship A/C, including position, heading, and ground speed.).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the one or more processors further configured to determine a configuration change of the one or more runways based on the one or more aspects of the plurality of aircraft in relation to the one or more runways over time (see at least Chenna P0032: Augmented autobrake system 20 (FIG. 2) may receive data from RWSL system 22 (sent via transmitter 34) indicating the illumination status of the RILs 31 and RELs 30 bordering the runway at which the ownship A/C is scheduled to land. In the event that any of the runway status lights bordering the runway are not presently illuminated (that is, less than all of the runway status lights are illuminated), controller 40 of augmented autobrake system 20 (FIG. 2) can again generate one or more alerts within the cockpit of the ownship A/C (e.g., a visual alert and/or aural alert) notifying the aircrew of the increased risk of incursion onto the runway. Note: the examiner interprets the runway are not presently illuminated as an example of a configuration change).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna further teaches the one or more processors further configured to output one or more runway status signals including data regarding the status of the one or more runways (see at least Chenna P0023: runway status light).
Claims 15 & 20 are directed toward methods that performs the steps recited in the systems of claims 1, 2, 3, 11 & 12 and the computer readable storage medium that perform the functions of claim1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1 teach the steps recited in the method and computer product claims 15, 16 & 20. Therefore, claims 15, 16 & 20 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-6, 11 & 12.
Chenna + Klamer + Naimer
Claims 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenna in view of Klamer in further view of publication US 8,378,852 B2, hereinafter Naimer.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Naimer teaches the one or more processors are configured to determine the status based on a plurality of aircraft in relation to the one or more runways within a predetermined time threshold (see at least Naimer Fig. 1 showing a processor in the monitoring system and C9 Ln33: provide a notification of a potential runway incursion at least a certain amount of time before aircraft 120 would reach runway 121 at its present velocity the examiner interprets a certain amount of time as an example of a predetermined time threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna & Klamer incorporate the method of Naimer in the airport management field of invention to determine runway status within a time limit for the advantage of anticipating potential runway incursions ahead of time (see at least Naimer C9 Ln34).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Naimer teaches said determining comprises determining the status based on the plurality of the aircraft in relation to the one or more runways within a predetermined time threshold (see at least Naimer C9 Ln33: provide a notification of a potential runway incursion at least a certain amount of time before aircraft 120 would reach runway 121 at its present velocity the examiner interprets a certain amount of time as an example of a predetermined time threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Naimer in the airport management field of invention to determine runway status within a time limit for the advantage of anticipating potential runway incursions ahead of time (see at least Naimer C9 Ln34).
Guo + Kwon + Chen
Claims 8 – 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenna & Klamer in view of publication CN 114298196 A, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Chen teaches runway modes to determine the status of the one or more runways as one or both of an active arrival runway or an active departure runway based on the one or more aspects of the plurality of the aircraft in relation to opposite ends of the one or more runways (see at least Chen Pn0052: The same runway has entrance ends on both sides, and both entrance ends on both sides can be used for aircraft take-off and landing activities. In order to facilitate the description of the aircraft operation status on the same runway, the present invention records one side of the runway as u and the other side as n, Pn0055: automatically determine and output the runway operation mode, the present invention sets the runway operation mode to five types and Pn0058: As shown in Table 1, the five runway operation modes include single runway operation mode, isolated parallel runway mode, independent/dependent parallel departure mode, independent/dependent parallel approach mode and independent/dependent parallel departure and approach mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Chen in the runway management field of invention to classify arrival and departure runways based on aircraft entry at the ends of the runway for the advantage of increasing safety through more accurate and efficient multi-runway operations at airports (see at least Chen Pn0034 and Pn0002).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Chen teaches determine that a runway is inactive in response to detecting different aircraft at opposite ends of the runway at the same time (see at least Chen Pn0054: It should be noted that a physical runway can only use the entrance on the same side for operation in the same time period, that is, the same runway can only use the entrance on the u side or the n side for operation in the same time period the examiner interprets an operational runway only using the entrance on the same side as indicating that it is otherwise inactive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Chen in the runway management field of invention to determine a runway is not being used for the advantage of increasing safety through more accurate and efficient multi-runway operations at airports (see at least Chen Pn0034 and Pn0002).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Chen teaches parallel runway modes to determine that two different parallel runways are not active in opposite directions (see at least Chen Pn0052: the present invention records one side of the runway as u and the other side as n… determine the running status of the runway through the runway running status matrix, Pn0054: It should be noted that a physical runway can only use the entrance on the same side for operation in the same time period, that is, the same runway can only use the entrance on the u side or the n side for operation in the same time period the examiner interprets from the matrix representation of multiple runways as seen in Table 1 (translated below) that the same direction is maintained across multiple parallel runways).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated copy of Chen Table 1 showing takeoff and landing matrices for the different parallel runway modes
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Chen in the runway management field of invention to detect and manage single-direction runways for the advantage of increasing safety through more accurate and efficient multi-runway operations at airports (see at least Chen Pn0034 and Pn0002).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 15. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following.. However, Chen teaches runway modes determining the status of the one or more runways as one or both of an active arrival runway or an active departure runway based on the one or more aspects of the plurality of the aircraft in relation to opposite ends of the one or more runways (see at least Chen Pn0052: The same runway has entrance ends on both sides, and both entrance ends on both sides can be used for aircraft take-off and landing activities. In order to facilitate the description of the aircraft operation status on the same runway, the present invention records one side of the runway as u and the other side as n, Pn0055: automatically determine and output the runway operation mode, the present invention sets the runway operation mode to five types and Pn0058: As shown in Table 1, the five runway operation modes include single runway operation mode, isolated parallel runway mode, independent/dependent parallel departure mode, independent/dependent parallel approach mode and independent/dependent parallel departure and approach mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Chen in the runway management field of invention to classify arrival and departure runways based on aircraft entry at the ends of the runway for the advantage of increasing safety through more accurate and efficient multi-runway operations at airports (see at least Chen Pn0034 and Pn0002).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 15. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Chen teaches determining that a runway is inactive in response to detecting different aircraft at opposite ends of the runway at the same time (see at least Chen Pn0054: It should be noted that a physical runway can only use the entrance on the same side for operation in the same time period, that is, the same runway can only use the entrance on the u side or the n side for operation in the same time period the examiner interprets an operational runway only using the entrance on the same side as indicating that it is otherwise inactive); and determining that two different parallel runways are not active in opposite directions (see at least Chen Pn0052: the present invention records one side of the runway as u and the other side as n… determine the running status of the runway through the runway running status matrix, Pn0054: It should be noted that a physical runway can only use the entrance on the same side for operation in the same time period, that is, the same runway can only use the entrance on the u side or the n side for operation in the same time period the examiner interprets from the matrix representation of multiple runways as seen in Table 1 (translated below) that the same direction is maintained across multiple parallel runways).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Chen in the runway management field of invention to determine a runway is not being used and to detect and manage single-direction runways for the advantage of increasing safety through more accurate and efficient multi-runway operations at airports (see at least Chen Pn0034 and Pn0002).
Guo + Kwon + Scarlatti
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenna & Klamer in view of US 11,120,698 B2, hereinafter Scarlatti.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following. However, Scarlatti teaches the one or more processors include an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (see at least Scarlatti Fig. 12 displaying the processing unit 1200 including a machine learning module 1242).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Scarlatti in the airport runway configuration field of invention to include an artificial intelligence or machine learning system for the advantage of reducing fuel consumption of takeoff, landing, and taxiing (see at least Scarlatti C2 Ln6).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Chenna & Klamer teaches the limitations of claim 15. Chenna & Klamer do not teach the following.. However, Scarlatti teaches the one or more processors include an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (see at least Scarlatti Fig. 12 displaying the processing unit 1200 including a machine learning module 1242).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chenna to incorporate the method of Scarlatti in the airport runway configuration field of invention to include an artificial intelligence or machine learning system for the advantage of reducing fuel consumption of takeoff, landing, and taxiing (see at least Scarlatti C2 Ln6).
Conclusion
Related References
The related art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“A software architecture for autonomous taxiing of aircraft” by Zhang teaches autonomous control of numerous aircraft around an airport (see at least II. Software Architecture and III. Air traffic control route validation lower0level control of the aircraft motion).
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 KITO R ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights