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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/29/2025. Claims 21-40 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-20 were cancelled.
Priority
Examiner notes that the claim amendments submitted on 10/29/2025 receive the earliest priority date of 01/16/2024 and are supported by the Specification filed on 01/16/2024.
Reply to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under § 101 have been rendered moot as the claims have been cancelled and replaced. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under § 112(b) have been rendered moot as the claims have been cancelled and replaced. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11 of the Applicant's Remarks, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under § 102 have been rendered moot as the claims have been cancelled and replaced. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liu, and Choksi.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "airport map database is configured to" in claims 22 and 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 21
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (an aircraft ground collision avoidance system).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
An aircraft ground collision avoidance system comprising:
an aircraft sensor system of a first aircraft configured to generate aircraft sensor data;
a communication system of the first aircraft;
a display device of the first aircraft; and
a controller of the first aircraft configured to be communicatively coupled to the sensor system, the communication system, and the display device, the controller being configured to:
generate a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading based on the aircraft sensor data received from the aircraft sensor system;
receive first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via the communication system;
predict a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data;
determine whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point; and
generate a potential collision alert for display on the display device based on the determination.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of a controller, and its unrecited processor, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
An aircraft ground collision avoidance system comprising:
an aircraft sensor system of a first aircraft configured to generate aircraft sensor data;
a communication system of the first aircraft;
a display device of the first aircraft; and
a controller of the first aircraft configured to be communicatively coupled to the sensor system, the communication system, and the display device, the controller being configured to:
generate a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading based on the aircraft sensor data received from the aircraft sensor system;
receive first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via the communication system;
predict a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data;
determine whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point; and
generate a potential collision alert for display on the display device based on the determination.
The recited controller, and its unrecited processor, is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instructions to generate aircraft sensor data and receive first taxi route data (i.e., as a general means to generate aircraft sensor data and receive first taxi route data), amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the instruction to generate a potential collision alert for display is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to generate a potential collision alert for display), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components, and the extra-solution activity of acquiring data for display. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. Further the mere collection or receipt of data to be used by a computer program for the purposes of making determinations is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 21 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 22-35
These apparatus claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 21, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the determination of vehicle routes to determine whether two aircraft will collide on the ground, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
As per claim 36
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method for avoiding aircraft ground collision).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method of avoiding aircraft ground collision comprising:
generating a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading of a first aircraft based on aircraft sensor data received from an aircraft sensor system;
receiving first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via an aircraft communication system;
predicting a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data;
determining whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point; and
generating a potential collision alert for display on a display device of the first aircraft based on the determination.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method of avoiding aircraft ground collision comprising:
generating a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading of a first aircraft based on aircraft sensor data received from an aircraft sensor system;
receiving first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via an aircraft communication system;
predicting a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data;
determining whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point; and
generating a potential collision alert for display on a display device of the first aircraft based on the determination.
The instructions to receive first taxi route data (i.e., as a general means receive first taxi route data), amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the instruction for generating a potential collision alert for display is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for generating a potential collision alert for display), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the extra-solution activity of acquiring data for display. Further the mere collection or receipt of data to be used for the purposes of making determinations is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103. For these reasons, claim 36 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 37-40
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 36, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the determination of vehicle routes to determine whether two aircraft will collide on the ground, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 103.
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.
Claims 21-22, 25-27, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Liu et al., US-20210350715-A1, in view of Choksi et al., US-20140278037-A1, hereinafter referred to as Liu, and Choksi.
As per claim 21
Liu discloses [a]n aircraft ground collision avoidance system comprising (A processor-implemented ground collision avoidance method in an ownship vehicle – Liu Claim 1):
an aircraft sensor system of a first aircraft configured to generate aircraft sensor data (sensors on the ownship vehicle – Liu ¶6);
a display device of the first aircraft (display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew – Liu ¶27);
a controller of the first aircraft configured to be communicatively coupled to the sensor system, and the display device, the controller being configured to (processor-implemented collision avoidance method…detecting, by sensors on the ownship vehicle…causing, by the processor, a collision alert to be displayed on the display device – Liu ¶9).
generate a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading based on the aircraft sensor data received from the aircraft sensor system (retrieving, from sensors on the ownship vehicle, position measurements for the ownship vehicle on the ground, speed sensors 112 can be used to measure the ground speed of the ownship aircraft, consideration of current heading and velocity for the ownship aircraft – Liu Claim 1 & ¶32 & ¶37);
predict a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data (The controller is configured to predict the movement of the ownship aircraft using position and other maneuver information such as ground speed and heading information from the position sensors 108, heading sensors 110, and speed sensors 112. The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of the ownship aircraft using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116, which includes coordinates of airport elements such as runways and taxiways – Liu ¶34);
determine whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point (whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle; calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the boundary of a static obstruction – Liu ¶6);
generate a potential collision alert for display on the display device based on the determination (causing, by the processor, a collision alert to be displayed on a display device when the processor has determined that a potential collision between the ownship vehicle and the dynamic obstacle or static obstacle is imminent – Liu ¶6).
Liu does not specifically disclose a communication system of the first aircraft;
[computer connected to] the communication system;
receive first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via the communication system.
However, Choksi teaches a communication system of the first aircraft (CMU 120 also provides a data link between an aircraft and the ATC 304 through an aircraft communications addressing and reporting system/controller-pilot data link communications (ACARS/CPDLC) system - Choksi ¶17);
[computer connected to] the communication system (Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) 124 is a computerized system that is onboard aircraft and communicates with TCAS systems onboard other aircraft in the vicinity to determine potential collision situations and provide alerts to the crew to take appropriate evasive actions to avoid any imminent collisions…TCAS 124 may also be programmed with instructions to send the ground traffic information and ground traffic collision avoidance alerts to displays via an interface 124C - Choksi ¶18);
receive first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via the communication system (air traffic control (ATC) cleared taxi route and aircraft position data from one or more of data sources… wherein the FMS is programmed with instructions for receiving air traffic control (ATC) cleared taxi route, computing the desired ground path along the taxi route in response to the ATC cleared taxi route; calculating speed and heading guidance commands along the cleared taxi route making use of the aircraft position data…The CMU 120 also provides a data link between an aircraft and the ATC 304 through an aircraft communications - Choksi ¶6 & ¶17).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Choksi teaches a taxiing system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of aircraft on the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with a taxiing system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of aircraft on the ground, as taught by Choksi, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve aircraft taxiing safety, and improve both ground safety and fuel efficiency, see Choksi ¶4 & ¶14 for details.
As per claim 22
Liu further discloses further comprising: an airport map database configured to store coordinate data for a plurality of static obstacles on an airport ground surface, the plurality of static obstacles including a first static obstacle; and wherein: the obstacle is the first static obstacle; and the controller is configured to generate the position of the obstacle based on the coordinate data associated with the first static obstacle retrieved from the airport map database (retrieving…mapping data from an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data and dimension data for a static obstruction (e.g., building, pole, etc.) on an airport surface, airport moving map database 116, which includes coordinates of airport elements such as runways and taxiways – Liu ¶6 & ¶34).
As per claim 25
Liu further discloses further comprising an airport map database configured to store coordinate data of guidelines associated with a first taxi route, and wherein the controller is configured to (retrieving, by a processor on the ownship vehicle, mapping data from an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data - Liu Claim 1):
retrieve the coordinate data of the guidelines associated with the first taxi route from the airport map database based on the received first taxi route data (airport moving map database includes coordinate information for…guidance lines, wherein the coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database comprises coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway – Liu ¶46 & Claim 7);
define a first guideline for the first taxi route based on the coordinate data of the guidelines associated with the first taxi route (retrieving, by a processor on the ownship vehicle, mapping data from an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data…predicting, by the processor, a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle…based on coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database - Liu Claim 1);
refine the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft by estimating a series of future positions of the first aircraft by: estimating a next future position of the first aircraft based on a previously estimated position of the first aircraft, the current first aircraft speed, and the current first aircraft heading (predicting, by the processor, a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle that are constrained by airport surface operation rules by estimating a next future position for the ownship vehicle using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the ownship vehicle and adjusting the estimated next future position to a predicted next future position for the ownship vehicle – Liu ¶80);
adjusting the next estimated future position of the first aircraft to a nearest coordinate on the first guideline when the nearest coordinate is less than a first threshold distance away from the estimated next future position (adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the ownship vehicle when the nearest coordinate is less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position – Liu ¶86).
As per claim 26
Liu further discloses wherein the first threshold distance is based on statistics relating to historical aircraft taxi operation data along the first taxi route (wherein the threshold distance was determined based on statistics relating to historical taxi operation data on an airport surface – Liu Claim 5).
As per claim 27
Liu further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: generate a first aircraft protection zone around positions of the first aircraft, wherein estimating the series of future positions of the first aircraft comprises estimating a series of future positions for the first aircraft protection zone around the current first aircraft position and the future first aircraft positions; and determining whether there is the intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and the position of the obstacle, by determining whether there is an intersection between one of the series of the future positions of the first aircraft protection zone and the position of the obstacle (controller is configured to calculate a collision risk using an aircraft protection zone around the ownship aircraft and an obstacle aircraft, making maneuver path predictions for the aircraft protection zones for the ownship aircraft and the obstacle aircraft (operation 210). Maneuver path predictions involves predicting the next position of the aircraft protection zones for each of the ownship aircraft and the obstacle aircraft based on position measurements and position filtering, Predicting future positions for the ownship aircraft involves predicting future positions for up to a pre-determined look-ahead prediction distance…Determining whether the predicted future positions of the ownship aircraft and obstacle aircraft overlap in the future involves assessing whether there is a risk that the Aircraft Protection Zone for the ownship at predicted positions up to the look-ahead prediction distance would intersect with the Aircraft Protection Zone of the target aircraft at predicted positions up to the traffic predictive distance – Liu ¶38 & ¶56 & ¶59).
As per claim 36
Liu discloses [a] method of avoiding aircraft ground collision comprising (A processor-implemented ground collision avoidance method in an ownship vehicle – Liu Claim 1):
generating a current first aircraft position, a current first aircraft speed, and a current first aircraft heading of a first aircraft based on aircraft sensor data received from an aircraft sensor system (retrieving, from sensors on the ownship vehicle, position measurements for the ownship vehicle on the ground, speed sensors 112 can be used to measure the ground speed of the ownship aircraft, consideration of current heading and velocity for the ownship aircraft – Liu Claim 1 & ¶32 & ¶37);
predicting a first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based on the current first aircraft position, the current first aircraft speed, the current first aircraft heading, and the first taxi route data (The controller is configured to predict the movement of the ownship aircraft using position and other maneuver information such as ground speed and heading information from the position sensors 108, heading sensors 110, and speed sensors 112. The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of the ownship aircraft using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116, which includes coordinates of airport elements such as runways and taxiways – Liu ¶34);
determining whether there is an intersection between the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft and a position of an obstacle, the intersection defining a potential collision point (whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle; calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the boundary of a static obstruction – Liu ¶6);
generating a potential collision alert for display on a display device of the first aircraft based on the determination (causing, by the processor, a collision alert to be displayed on a display device when the processor has determined that a potential collision between the ownship vehicle and the dynamic obstacle or static obstacle is imminent – Liu ¶6).
Liu does not specifically disclose receiving first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via an aircraft communication system.
However, Choksi teaches receiving first taxi route data for the first aircraft from air traffic control (ATC) via an aircraft communication system (air traffic control (ATC) cleared taxi route and aircraft position data from one or more of data sources… wherein the FMS is programmed with instructions for receiving air traffic control (ATC) cleared taxi route, computing the desired ground path along the taxi route in response to the ATC cleared taxi route; calculating speed and heading guidance commands along the cleared taxi route making use of the aircraft position data…The CMU 120 also provides a data link between an aircraft and the ATC 304 through an aircraft communications - Choksi ¶6 & ¶17).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Choksi teaches a taxiing system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of aircraft on the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with a taxiing system to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of aircraft on the ground, as taught by Choksi, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve aircraft taxiing safety, and improve both ground safety and fuel efficiency, see Choksi ¶4 & ¶14 for details.
As per claim 37
Liu further discloses wherein: an airport map database is configured to store coordinate data for a plurality of static obstacles on an airport ground surface, the plurality of static obstacles including a first static obstacle, the obstacle being the first static obstacle; and the method further comprises generating the position of the obstacle based on the coordinate data associated with the first static obstacle retrieved from the airport map database (retrieving…mapping data from an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data and dimension data for a static obstruction (e.g., building, pole, etc.) on an airport surface, airport moving map database 116, which includes coordinates of airport elements such as runways and taxiways – Liu ¶6 & ¶34).
Claims 23, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Liu, in view of Choksi, as per claims 21, and 36, respectively, and further in view of Komori et al., US-20210229642-A1, hereinafter referred to as Komori.
As per claim 23
Liu further discloses wherein the obstacle is a dynamic obstacle and the controller is configured to: identify a current obstacle position, a current obstacle speed, and a current obstacle heading of the dynamic obstacle; receive second taxi route data for the dynamic obstacle; predict a second airport travel pathway of the dynamic obstacle based on the current obstacle position, the current obstacle speed, the current obstacle heading, and the second taxi route data (predict the movement of dynamic obstacles using information such as location, velocity, heading, size, etc. from the object detect sensors 114. The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) – Liu ¶35).
Liu does not specifically disclose determine whether there is the intersection between an estimated future position of the first aircraft along the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based at least on the current first aircraft speed and a travel time to the intersection and an obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle, the obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle being an estimated future position of the dynamic obstacle along the second airport travel pathway based on the current obstacle speed and the travel time and is the position of the obstacle.
However, Komori teaches determine whether there is the intersection between an estimated future position of the first aircraft along the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based at least on the current first aircraft speed and a travel time to the intersection and an obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle, the obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle being an estimated future position of the dynamic obstacle along the second airport travel pathway based on the current obstacle speed and the travel time and is the position of the obstacle (based on the travel locus and the travel speed of the other vehicle 90, the collision prediction unit 36 predicts a planned travel position (planned travel trajectory) and a planned travel time for the other vehicle 90…the collision prediction unit 36 predicts a planned travel position (planned travel trajectory) and a planned travel time for the user's own vehicle 80,…further, the planned travel time of the other vehicle 90 is later than the planned travel time of the user's own vehicle 80 at that position by only a slight or negligible amount of time, the collision prediction unit 36 determines that there is a possibility that a side collision may occur. The collision prediction unit 36 sets the position as a planned collision site - Komori ¶46).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Komori teaches a vehicle behavior control device and a vehicle behavior control method that controls the behavior of a user's own vehicle when another vehicle is predicted to collide with a side surface of the user's own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with a vehicle behavior control device and a vehicle behavior control method that controls the behavior of a user's own vehicle when another vehicle is predicted to collide with a side surface of the user's own vehicle, as taught by Komori, with a reasonable expectation of success for predicting that the another vehicle will collide with the side surface of the vehicle, see Komori ¶15 for details.
As per claim 38
Liu further discloses wherein obstacle is a dynamic obstacle and the method further comprises: identifying a current obstacle position, a current obstacle speed, and a current obstacle heading of the dynamic obstacle; receiving second taxi route data for the dynamic obstacle; predicting a second airport travel pathway of the dynamic obstacle based on the current obstacle position, the current obstacle speed, the current obstacle heading, and the second taxi route data (predict the movement of dynamic obstacles using information such as location, velocity, heading, size, etc. from the object detect sensors 114. The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) – Liu ¶35).
Liu does not specifically disclose determining whether there is the intersection between an estimated future position of the first aircraft along the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based at least on the current first aircraft speed and a travel time to the intersection and an obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle, the obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle being an estimated future position of the dynamic obstacle along the second airport travel pathway based on the current obstacle speed and the travel time and is the position of the obstacle.
However, Komori teaches determining whether there is the intersection between an estimated future position of the first aircraft along the first airport travel pathway of the first aircraft based at least on the current first aircraft speed and a travel time to the intersection and an obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle, the obstacle position of the dynamic obstacle being an estimated future position of the dynamic obstacle along the second airport travel pathway based on the current obstacle speed and the travel time and is the position of the obstacle (based on the travel locus and the travel speed of the other vehicle 90, the collision prediction unit 36 predicts a planned travel position (planned travel trajectory) and a planned travel time for the other vehicle 90…the collision prediction unit 36 predicts a planned travel position (planned travel trajectory) and a planned travel time for the user's own vehicle 80,…further, the planned travel time of the other vehicle 90 is later than the planned travel time of the user's own vehicle 80 at that position by only a slight or negligible amount of time, the collision prediction unit 36 determines that there is a possibility that a side collision may occur. The collision prediction unit 36 sets the position as a planned collision site - Komori ¶46).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Komori teaches a vehicle behavior control device and a vehicle behavior control method that controls the behavior of a user's own vehicle when another vehicle is predicted to collide with a side surface of the user's own vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with a vehicle behavior control device and a vehicle behavior control method that controls the behavior of a user's own vehicle when another vehicle is predicted to collide with a side surface of the user's own vehicle, as taught by Komori, with a reasonable expectation of success for predicting that the another vehicle will collide with the side surface of the vehicle, see Komori ¶15 for details.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Liu, in view of Choksi, as per claim 21, and further in view of Levy, US-20100109936-A1, hereinafter referred to as Levy.
As per claim 34
Liu does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether an actual airport travel path of the first aircraft deviated from the predicted first airport travel path of the first aircraft; and generate a deviation from airport travel path alert based on the determination.
However, Levy teaches wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether an actual airport travel path of the first aircraft deviated from the predicted first airport travel path of the first aircraft; and generate a deviation from airport travel path alert based on the determination (for avoiding…airport collisions…a respective mobile unit (12) associated with each mobile object authorized within a monitored area, a route deviation unit 37 responsive to a planned route for a mobile object for providing an alert if an actual route as determined from periodic position data of the object unacceptably deviates from the planned route – Levy Claim 1 & ¶117).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Levy teaches an aircraft anti-collision systems particularly at or in the vicinity of airports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with an aircraft anti-collision systems particularly at or in the vicinity of airports, as taught by Levy, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve situational awareness of the runways' status by informing pilots and ground vehicle operators when a runway is unsafe to enter/cross or to begin take-off, see Levy ¶37 for details.
As per claim 35
Liu does not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether an actual position of the obstacle deviated from the position of the obstacle; and generate a deviation of obstacle position alert based on the determination.
However, Levy teaches wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether an actual position of the obstacle deviated from the position of the obstacle; and generate a deviation of obstacle position alert based on the determination (for avoiding…airport collisions…a respective mobile unit (12) associated with each mobile object authorized within a monitored area, a route deviation unit 37 responsive to a planned route for a mobile object for providing an alert if an actual route as determined from periodic position data of the object unacceptably deviates from the planned route – Levy Claim 1 & ¶117).
Liu discloses ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles. Levy teaches an aircraft anti-collision systems particularly at or in the vicinity of airports.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu, ground-based collision avoidance systems for vehicles, with an aircraft anti-collision systems particularly at or in the vicinity of airports, as taught by Levy, with a reasonable expectation of success to improve situational awareness of the runways' status by informing pilots and ground vehicle operators when a runway is unsafe to enter/cross or to begin take-off, see Levy ¶37 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 28-33, and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668