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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 12, 14-15, and 17 are presented as currently amended claims.
No claims are newly presented.
No claims are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20110304479 A1) in view of Tuccio (US 20220215768 A1) (the combination of which will be referenced as ‘combination Chen’ hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a landing runway extension display system of an aircraft, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one memory comprising instructions that, upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (Chen: ¶ 129; processors coupled directly or indirectly to memory elements) identify a destination airport of the aircraft based on a flight path of the aircraft received from a flight management system (FMS) of the aircraft; (Chen: ¶ 105; If the information has been entered, the process then obtains runway data from a navigation database) determine a location of the aircraft based on location data received from at least one geospatial sensor of the aircraft; (Chen: ¶ 098; identifying a location of the aircraft (operation 1200) . . . at least one of a global positioning system) identify a landing runway at the destination airport; (Chen: ¶ 094; identifying a runway for an aircraft when the aircraft is within a selected distance of the runway (operation 1100).) and generate a display for display via an onboard display device system of the aircraft when the location of the aircraft is within a pre-defined distance from the destination airport, (Chen: Fig. 076; [Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline]) (Chen: ¶ 005; ) the display including the landing runway and a landing runway extension associated with a desired final approach flight path to the landing runway. (Chen: ¶ 076; Extended centerline 504 is a number of graphical indicators that identify an extension of a centerline for a runway.) (Chen: ¶ 094; identifying a runway for an aircraft when the aircraft is within a selected distance of the runway)
Chen does not explicitly teach: and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area; however, Tucciod does teach
and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.) wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area (Tuccio: ¶ 026; Each electronic representation of a circling approach is described by navigation data 120 for operating the aircraft in proximity to an airport . . . can include, but are not limited to ceiling minimum, required obstacle clearance (ROC), minimum obstacle clearance (MOC))
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuccio with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "keep[ing] an aircraft above obstacles within a specified distance away from all landing surfaces" (Tuccio: ¶ 001).
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Tuccio further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display a landing activation prompt via the onboard display device system when the location of the aircraft is within the pre-defined distance from the destination airport; (Tuccio: ¶ 035: processor 110 may cause additional interactive flight information to be displayed via the graphical interface 104, the additional interactive flight information corresponding to an electronic chart representation associated with the selected flight phase and/or procedure.) determine whether the landing activation prompt has been activated; and (Tuccio: ¶ 035: display 400 may include one or more selectable menu item (e.g., minima menu item 402, notes menu item 412, etc.) for displaying interactive flight information corresponding to the flight chart (e.g., as described with reference to FIG. 4). Based on a selection of the minima button 402, for example, the processor 110 populates the graphical interface)) generate the circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension on the display. (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: generate the display, the display comprising a navigation display; (Chen: ¶ 076; Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline 504. Extended centerline 504 is a number of graphical indicators that identify an extension of a centerline for a runway.)
And Tuccio further teaches: and generate the circling area to overlay the landing runway (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: (Chen: ¶ 037; Processor unit 204 serves to process instructions for software that may be loaded into memory) generate the display, the display comprising a navigation display; (Chen: [214]) . . . to overlay the landing runway and the extension of the landing runway at the destination airport on the display, (Chen: ¶ 076; Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline) (Chen: ¶ 005) wherein the landing runway extension is disposed within an outer perimeter of the circling area. (Chen: ¶ 064; graphical indicator may overlay or sit over the feature of runway 328.)
And Tuccio teaches: and generate the circling area (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuccio with the teachings of Chen because combining key pilot data on a shared display would have been “obvious to try” (MPEP § 2143(I) quoting: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421) because there are a limited number of options to try and combining minimum elevation data with runways extension data on the same display would reduce pilot cognitive load and improve pilot situational awareness and safety.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches a method of displaying a landing runway extension on an aircraft comprising:
identifying a destination airport of the aircraft based on a flight path of the aircraft received from a flight management system (FMS) of the aircraft; (Chen: ¶ 105; If the information has been entered, the process then obtains runway data from a navigation database)determining a location of the aircraft based on location data received from at least one geospatial sensor of the aircraft; (Chen: ¶ 098; identifying a location of the aircraft (operation 1200) . . . at least one of a global positioning system)identifying a landing runway at the destination airport; (Chen: ¶ 094; identifying a runway for an aircraft when the aircraft is within a selected distance of the runway (operation 1100).)and generating a display for display via an onboard display device system of the aircraft when the location of the aircraft is within a pre-defined distance from the destination airport, (Chen: ¶ 076; Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline) (Chen: ¶ 005; )the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension associated with a desired final approach flight path to the landing runway. (Chen: Fig. 076; [Extended centerline 504 is a number of graphical indicators that identify an extension of a centerline for a runway.]) (Chen: ¶ 094; identifying a runway for an aircraft when the aircraft is within a selected distance of the runway)
Chen does not explicitly teach: and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area; however, Tucciod does teach
and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.) wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area (Tuccio: ¶ 026; Each electronic representation of a circling approach is described by navigation data 120 for operating the aircraft in proximity to an airport . . . can include, but are not limited to ceiling minimum, required obstacle clearance (ROC), minimum obstacle clearance (MOC))
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuccio with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "keep[ing] an aircraft above obstacles within a specified distance away from all landing surfaces" (Tuccio: ¶ 001).
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen teaches:
generating the display, the display comprising a navigation display; (Chen: [214]) . . . to overlay the landing runway and the extension of the landing runway at the destination airport on the display, (Chen: ¶ 076; Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline) (Chen: ¶ 005) wherein the landing runway extension is disposed within an outer perimeter of the circling area;. (Chen: ¶ 064; graphical indicator may overlay or sit over the feature of runway 328.)
And Tuccio teaches: and generating a circling area (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuccio with the teachings of Chen because combining key pilot data on a shared display would have been “obvious to try” (MPEP § 2143(I) quoting: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421) because there are a limited number of options to try and combining minimum elevation data with runways extension data on the same display would reduce pilot cognitive load and improve pilot situational awareness and safety.
Claims 2, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Chen as applied to claims 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Estes et al. (US 20210043093 A1). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display a landing activation prompt via the onboard display device system when the location of the aircraft is within the pre-defined distance from the destination airport; (Chen: ¶ 114; If the altitude of the aircraft is below the second selected altitude, the process displays the runway remaining billboard indicator)
Chen does not explicitly teach: determine whether the landing activation prompt has been activated by selection of the landing activation prompt via a user input device; and generate the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway based on the determination; however, Estes does teach:
determine whether the landing activation prompt has been activated by selection of the landing activation prompt via a user input device; and (Estes: ¶ 2A; [Notification already issued]) (Estes: ¶ 050; user can perform a gesture on the GUMPS notification (or any other notification) on the display in order to snooze, maximize, and/or dismiss the notification as shown) generate the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway based on the determination. (Estes: Fig. 006; [providing the aircraft with at least one notification based on the phase of flight for the aircraft . . . the phase of flight can include short final [on] a touch-sensitive display.])
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Estes with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "provid[ing] pilots with timely information to allow for better decision making and improved safety during the piloting of a flight." (Estes: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display a landing activation prompt via the onboard display device system on at least one of a navigation display, a multifunction control display unit (MCDU) display, and a primary flight display (PFD) when the location of the aircraft is within the pre-defined distance from the destination airport; and display the display via the onboard display device system on at least one of the navigation display, the multifunction control display unit (MCDU) display, and the primary flight display (PFD); however, Estes does teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display a landing activation prompt via the onboard display device system on at least one of a navigation display, a multifunction control display unit (MCDU) display, and a primary flight display (PFD) when the location of the aircraft is within the pre-defined distance from the destination airport; and display the display via the onboard display device system on at least one of the navigation display, the multifunction control display unit (MCDU) display, and the primary flight display (PFD). (Estes: ¶ 050; user can perform a gesture on the GUMPS notification (or any other notification) on the display in order to snooze, maximize, and/or dismiss the notification as shown) (Estes: ¶ 2A; [Notification already issued])
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Estes with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "provid[ing] pilots with timely information to allow for better decision making and improved safety during the piloting of a flight." (Estes: ¶ 002).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen further teaches:
displaying a landing activation prompt via the onboard display device system when the location of the aircraft is within the pre-defined distance from the destination airport; (Chen: ¶ 114; If the altitude of the aircraft is below the second selected altitude, the process displays the runway remaining billboard indicator) . . . to overlay the landing runway (Chen: ¶ 064; graphical indicator may overlay or sit over the feature of runway 328.) and the landing runway extension on the display based on the determination.(Chen: ¶ 076; Graphical indicators 502 include extended centerline) (Chen: ¶ 005) . . .
And Tuccio teaches: . . . generating the circling area associated with the destination airport . . . (Tuccio: ¶ 038; a visual depiction of a circling area or circling radius associated with the airport runway. In some embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 includes a visual depiction (e.g., bars, highlighting, etc.) of unauthorized portions of the circling area. In specific embodiments, the circling approach obstacle protected airspace depiction 404 is displayed to scale, for example, on a map or moving map of the display.)
Chen does not explicitly teach: determining whether the landing activation prompt has been activated by selection of the landing activation prompt via a user input device; and; however, Estes does teach:
determining whether the landing activation prompt has been activated by selection of the landing activation prompt via a user input device; and; (Estes: ¶ 2A; [Notification already issued]) (Estes: ¶ 050; user can perform a gesture on the GUMPS notification (or any other notification) on the display in order to snooze, maximize, and/or dismiss the notification as shown)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Estes with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "provid[ing] pilots with timely information to allow for better decision making and improved safety during the piloting of a flight." (Estes: ¶ 002).
Claims 3, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Chen as applied to claims 1 and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Khatwa (US 20230060551 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to generate the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway, the final approach flight path being different from an approach flight path to the destination airport; however, Khatwa does teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to generate the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway, the final approach flight path being different from an approach flight path to the destination airport. (Khatwa: Fig. 088; [the in-air approaching runway advisory is output when the aircraft is determined to be within a volumetric airspace close to a runway that is not the FMS planned landing runway . . . using color-coding of a runway feature in an AMM display so as to distinguish between wrong and correct approaching runway status as compared to that planned by the FMS 514]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Khatwa with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] flight crew awareness of the position of the aircraft relative to the runway end during low visibility conditions." (Khatwa: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen does not explicitly teach:
generating the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway, the final approach flight path being different from an approach flight path to the destination airport; however, Khatwa does teach:
generating the display to include the landing runway extension associated with the final approach flight path to the landing runway, the final approach flight path being different from an approach flight path to the destination airport. (Khatwa: ¶ 088; the in-air approaching runway advisory is output when the aircraft is determined to be within a volumetric airspace close to a runway that is not the FMS planned landing runway . . . using color-coding of a runway feature in an AMM display so as to distinguish between wrong and correct approaching runway status as compared to that planned by the FMS 514).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Khatwa with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] flight crew awareness of the position of the aircraft relative to the runway end during low visibility conditions." (Khatwa: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 20, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen does not explicitly teach:
selecting the landing runway from multiple runways at the destination airport, the selected landing runway being different from an approach runway; however, Khatwa does teach:
selecting the landing runway from multiple runways at the destination airport, the selected landing runway being different from an approach runway. (Khatwa: ¶ 088; the in-air approaching runway advisory is output when the aircraft is determined to be within a volumetric airspace close to a runway that is not the FMS planned landing runway . . . using color-coding of a runway feature in an AMM display so as to distinguish between wrong and correct approaching runway status as compared to that planned by the FMS 514).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Khatwa with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of "improv[ing] flight crew awareness of the position of the aircraft relative to the runway end during low visibility conditions." (Khatwa: ¶ 005).
Claims 6, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Chen in view of Spinelli as applied to claims 5, 7, and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 9008873 B1).
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, Chen in view of Spinelli teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 5. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to generate the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway past the outer perimeter of the circling area; however, Phillips does teach:
A aircraft display system wherein the display adjusts the runway area displayed beyond the landing zone with a different color. (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.) Therefore before the date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to generate the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway past the outer perimeter of the circling area.
Because Phillips teaches displaying a portion of a runway unsuitable for landing in a different color. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a runway extension is unsuitable for landing and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the choice of altering the unsuitable runway by color rather than by extending it beyond the circle described in the prior art is merely an aesthetic design change (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)). Finally, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, Chen in view of Spinelli in view of Phillips teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 7. Phillips further teaches:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to generate the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway to the outer perimeter of the circling area. (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, Chen in view of Spinelli teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 17. Chen does not explicitly teach:
further comprising generating the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway to the outer perimeter of the circling area; however, Phillips does teach:
further comprising generating the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway to the outer perimeter of the circling area. (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Claims 10, 11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Chen as applied to claims 1, and 12 respectively above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 9008873 B1).
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display the landing runway using a first format; and display the landing runway extension using a second format, the first format being different from the second format; however, Phillips does teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display the landing runway using a first format; and display the landing runway extension using a second format, the first format being different from the second format. (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display the landing runway using a first color; and display the landing runway extension using a second color, the first color being different from the second color; however, Phillips does teach:
wherein the at least one memory further comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: display the landing runway using a first color; and display the landing runway extension using a second color, the first color being different from the second color. (Phillips: Fig. 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; [touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen does not explicitly teach:
generating the display, the display comprising a navigation display; and generating the circling area to overlay the landing runway and the extension of the landing runway at the destination airport on the display, wherein the landing runway extension extends past an outer perimeter of the circling area; however, Phillips does teach:
A aircraft display system wherein the display adjusts the runway area displayed beyond the landing zone with a different color. ◄ (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.). Therefore before the date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested:
generating the display, the display comprising a navigation display; and generating a circling area to overlay the landing runway and the extension of the landing runway at the destination airport on the display, wherein the landing runway extension extends past an outer perimeter of the circling area.
Because Phillips teaches displaying a portion of a runway unsuitable for landing in a different color. As a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a runway extension is unsuitable for landing and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the choice of altering the unsuitable runway by color rather than by extending it beyond the circle described in the prior art is merely an aesthetic design change (In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)).
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, Chen in view of Phillips teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 15. Chen does not explicitly teach:
generating the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway past the outer perimeter of the circling area; however, Phillips does teach:
generating the display including the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the landing runway extension extends from one end of the landing runway past the outer perimeter of the circling area. (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Regarding claim 19, as detailed above, combination Chen teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 12. Chen does not explicitly teach:
displaying the landing runway using a first format; and displaying the landing runway extension using a second format, the first format being different from the second format; however, Phillips does teach:
displaying the landing runway using a first format; and displaying the landing runway extension using a second format, the first format being different from the second format (Phillips: ¶ 026; Col. 6, Lns. 45-49; touchdown safe zone 74 may be displayed as a color-coded rectangle and the LDP indicator 76 may be displayed as a line or a fence that can be easily distinguished by pilots from other airport or runway map symbology.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Chen because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of insur[ing] that runways that cannot be utilized by a particular aircraft will not be listed/uplinked as a candidate (Phillips: ¶ Col. 8, Lns. 65-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed Nov. 20, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite "the display including the landing runway, a landing runway extension associated with a desired final approach flight path to the landing runway, and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area." As discussed during the Examiner Interview, the art of record fails to disclose "the display including the landing runway, a landing runway extension associated with a desired final approach flight path to the landing runway, and a circling area associated with the destination airport to overlay the landing runway and the landing runway extension, wherein the circling area comprises a designated circling area of airspace that guarantees a minimum obstacle clearance protection area" as recited by amended independent claim 1. (Applicant’s Arguments filed Nov. 20, 2025, pg. PP).
Tuccio (US 20220215768 A1) has been newly applied in the prior art rejection supra. Tuccio teaches a system that displays a circling area, the approach obstacle protected airspace, the destination airport runway and possible runway restrictions. To the extent Tuccio is silent regarding runway extensions, previously applied art Chen teaches displaying a landing runway extension and combining data on a display screen.
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tuccio with the teachings of Chen because combining key pilot data on a shared display would have been “obvious to try” (MPEP § 2143(I) citing: KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421). The court in KSR noted when there are a limited number of options to try, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to attempt combining them. Here there is a limited amount of data available to a landing pilot and minimum elevation and the location of the runway are critical. Therefore, attempting to combine circling approach obstacle protected airspace with runways extension data on the same display would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because doing so would reduce pilot cognitive load and improve pilot situational awareness and safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Pr et al. (US 20190279516 A1) which discloses a method for providing circling approach data onboard an aircraft.
Also made of record is (1) Reitan (EP 0943105 B1) which teaches a display that shows minimum safe elevation and runway extensions on shared display and (2) Iida (JP 2000276699 A) which teaches a pilot warning system that considers that the movement route of the aircraft from the extension of the runway is not greater than the allowable limit, and the aircraft spacing monitoring unit determines that the distance between the aircraft is not less than the minimum clearance
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663