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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on November 24, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11, 13-14, and 17-19 have been amended. No claims were added. Claims 6, 16, and 20 were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a collision avoidance directive generation system which enables a processor to receive a location and velocity of an intruder aircraft, determine a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway, define an incursion line extending across the runway, determine a time to collision, generate a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway, determine whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, and generate a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft (a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and
will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A collision avoidance directive generation system comprising:
a communication system;
at least one geospatial sensor;
an output device;
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the communication system, the at least one geospatial sensor, and the output device;
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:
receive a location and a velocity of an intruder aircraft via the communication system;
determine a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft;
define an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft;
receive a current location and a velocity of an ego aircraft from the at least one geospatial sensor;
determine a time to collision, wherein the ego aircraft is expected to cross the incursion line on the runway at the time to collision, wherein the time to collision is based on the velocity of the ego aircraft and a distance between the current location of the ego aircraft and the incursion line;
generate a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway based on the time to collision, the current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft, and the velocity of the intruder aircraft;
make a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion;
generate a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination;
make a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off;
and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in
the human mind. For example, “receive”, “determine”, “define”, and “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 uses the limitation of “received from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) system”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 uses the limitations of “determine whether the predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway is less than zero” and “generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 uses the limitations of “determine whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway” and “generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 uses the limitations of “determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance is less than a distance between a current location of the ego aircraft on the runway and the incursion line” and “generate a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 uses the limitations of “determine whether an altitude of the ego aircraft along a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to a height of the intruder aircraft at the incursion line” and “generate a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort a landing to be output to the output device the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 uses the limitations of “determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance is less than a distance between a touchdown location on the runway and the incursion line” and “and generate a fourth directive alert to proceed with a landing based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 uses the limitations of “determine whether a safety margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on a horizontal plane of a flight path of the ego aircraft enables the ego aircraft to implement an emergency turn” and “generate a fifth directive alert to implement the emergency turn and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 11,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed toward a method of generating a collision avoidance directive which involves the process of providing a communication system, receiving a location and a velocity of an intruder aircraft, determining a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway, defining an incursion line extending across the runway, determining a time to collision, generating a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway, determining whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, and generating a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft (a method). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and
will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method of generating a collision avoidance directive comprising:
providing a communication system, at least one geospatial sensor; and an output device of an ego aircraft;
receiving a location and a velocity of an intruder aircraft via the communication system;
determining a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft;
defining an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft;
receiving a current location and a velocity of the ego aircraft from the at least one geospatial sensor;
determining a time to collision, wherein the ego aircraft is expected to cross the incursion line on the runway at the time to collision wherein the time to collision is based on the velocity of the ego aircraft and a distance between the current location of the ego aircraft and the incursion line;
generating a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway based on the time to collision, the current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft, and the velocity of the intruder aircraft;
making a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion;
generating a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination;
making a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off;
and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process”
because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in
the human mind. For example, “providing”, “receiving”, “determining”, “defining”, and “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 12-15 and 17-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 uses the limitation of “receiving the location of the intruder aircraft and the current velocity of the intruder aircraft from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) system”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 uses the limitations of “determining whether the predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway is less than zero” and “generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 uses the limitations of “determining whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway” and “generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 15 uses the limitations of “determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance is less than a distance between a current location of the ego aircraft on the runway and the incursion line” and “generating a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 17 uses the limitations of “determining whether a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to the intruder aircraft” and “generating a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 18 uses the limitations of “determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance is less than a distance between a touchdown location on the runway and the incursion line” and “generating a fourth directive alert to proceed with a landing based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 19 uses the limitations of “determining whether a safety margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on a horizontal plane of a flight path of the ego aircraft enables the ego aircraft to implement an emergency turn” and “generating a fifth directive alert to implement the emergency turn and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210350716) in view of Sharma, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8019529) and in further view of Pilley, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6195609).
Regarding claim 1, Gariel, et al. teaches: A collision avoidance directive generation system comprising: (Paragraph [0071]: "FIGS. 2C-2D are functional block diagrams of an example avoidance system (200-1) [collision avoidance directive generations system]. The avoidance system (200-1) includes a data acquisition and processing module (242) (hereinafter “data processing module (242)”) [processor] that receives data from the sensors (204), communication systems (206), and navigations systems (208).")
a communication system; (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0043]: "communication systems (206) [communication system]")
at least one geospatial sensor; (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0043]: "sensors (204) [geospatial sensor]")
an output device; (Fig. 2A, Paragraph [0043]: "pilot input/output (I/O) (216) [output device]")
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the communication system, the at least one geospatial sensor, and the output device; (Figs. 2C-2D, Paragraph [0071]: "The avoidance system (200-1) includes a data acquisition and processing module (242) (hereinafter “data processing module (242)”) [processor] that receives data from the sensors (204), communication systems (206), and navigations systems (208) [coupled to communication system, geospatial sensor and output device].")
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: (Paragraph [0150]: "The electronic hardware and software components may include, but are not limited to, one or more processing units, one or more memory components [memory], one or more input/output (I/O) components, and interconnect components. Interconnect components may be configured to provide communication between the one or more processing units, the one or more memory components, and the one or more I/O components [communicatively coupled to processor].")
receive a location and a velocity of an intruder aircraft via the communication system; (Paragraph [0030]: "Referring to FIG. 1, the ownship (100) and the other aircraft (102) [intruder aircraft] may be associated with a historical trajectory (e.g., (110), (112-1), (112-2)) and a predicted trajectory (e.g., (114), (116-1), (116-2)). A trajectory may refer to a sequence of positions of an aircraft over time. In some implementations, a trajectory may also refer to other parameters of the aircraft, such as a velocity of the aircraft at different points in time [velocity]. In some implementations, the velocity of the aircraft may be determined based on the change in position [locations] of the aircraft." ; Paragraph [0060]: Paragraph [0060]: "The avoidance system (200) may use data from the […] communication system (206) in order to determine the historic / current state of the ownship and other aircraft [intruder aircraft via communication system].")
receive a current location and a velocity of an ego aircraft from the at least one geospatial sensor; (Paragraph [0060]: Paragraph [0060]: "The avoidance system (200) may use data from the […] sensors (204), […] in order to determine the historic / current state of the ownship and other aircraft [ego aircraft via sensor]. For example, the avoidance system (200) may determine historic/current attitude, position, and/or velocity of the ownship and other aircraft [current location and velocity from sensor].")
determine a time to collision, wherein the ego aircraft is expected to cross the incursion line on the runway at the time to collision, wherein the time to collision is based on the velocity of the ego aircraft and a distance between the current location of the ego aircraft and the incursion line; (Paragraph [0115]: "Additional example intruder aircraft information may include an available intruder tail number (e.g., N123AB), an aircraft type, an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B) [time to collision - incursion line]" ; Paragraph [0133]: "In some implementations, the avoidance GUI may use colors and/or patterns to indicate a level of urgency (e.g., a time to conflict) associated with a rendered zone [notification of time to collision - incursion line]." ; Paragraph [0135]: "…the maneuver indicator (600-1) may indicate a change in velocity vector for the ownship that may resolve the predicted conflict [velocity of ego aircraft]." ; Paragraph [0087]: "The conflict determination module (246) may include conflict parameters that define when a predicted/realized conflict may occur. For example, the conflict determination module (246) may include defined distance values (e.g., in meters) that define when two aircraft are in a conflict [...] Additionally, a second defined distance that is less than the first defined distance may be defined for a near mid-air collision (NMAC) [notification of time to collision - parameter of collision based on distance].")
generate a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway based on the time to collision, the current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft, and the velocity of the intruder aircraft (Paragraph [0069]: "…the avoidance system (200-1) performs conflict determination operations. The conflict determination operations may include determining whether one or more of the predicted trajectories of the other aircraft may conflict with the ownship trajectory. The conflict determination operations may also include determining whether any of the other aircraft are currently in conflict with the ownship [trajectory (time/velocity) and position prediction - lateral incursion]. The conflict determination operations may also include determining one or more conflict zones associated with the one or more determined conflicts.").
Gariel, et al. does not teach determine a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; define an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; make a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion; and generate a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft conflict avoidance), Sharma, et al. teaches: determine a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; (Col. 9, lines 12-17: "Conflict detector (30) is configured to receive the current and predicted ownship, traffic, and obstacle [intruder aircraft] states from predictions processor (28) and determine whether there is or will be a conflict on the runway, taxiway, or other airport surface movement region between a protection zone around the ownship and the protection zones around traffic and obstacles [lateral incursion of intruder aircraft].")
define an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; (Col. 9, lines 27-36: "Conformance monitor (32) may also be configured to monitor traffic conformance [intruder aircraft] with operational and alerting rules (48), runway or taxiway dimensions (42) received from runway/taxiway generator (18), traffic intent and clearances (41) received by the traffic surveillance processor (14) (e.g., is the traffic on the correct route, has the traffic violated any clearances like crossing a hold-line prior to receiving appropriate clearance, etc.) received from the traffic surveillance processor (16) [incursion line extending across runway]")
make a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion; (Col. 10, lines 19-23: "At step (112), possible runway incursion alerts are computed based on the current and predicted ownship and target states of step (110), runway/taxiway geometry, operational and alerting rules (58), and/or ground alerts (50). If an error is encountered, RIA algorithm (100) may be terminated [predicted lateral incursion procedure]." ; Col. 10, lines 48-53: "If a conflict alert level is greater than the conformance alert level (e.g., based on ownship conflict alert level, target alert level, target conformance alert type), the degree to which the conflict level is greater than the conformance level may determine the overall alert level [margin between ego aircraft and intruder aircraft].")
generate a first directive alert to proceed with a take-off via the runway to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination (Col. 10, lines 40-44: "At step (114), any computed alerts from step (112) are managed and prioritized based on the alert type and/or alert level. For example, the conformance alert level may be set to one level if the conformance alert type is related to an unknown location, a taxiway takeoff or landing [generates alert for runway takeoff or landing]" ; Col. 10, lines 53-55: "The alert types and levels are then sent to the display processor (26) for output to one or more display (e.g., a SAD (23), and/or audio system (24)) [output to output device of ego aircraft].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gariel, et al. to include the teaching of Sharma, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of preventing conflict between the trajectories of aircraft (Sharma, et al. Col. 1, lines 16-25).
The combination of Gariel, et al. and Sharma, et al. does not teach make a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (airport management control), Pilley, et al. teaches: make a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; (Col. 41, lines 1-10: "Determine the new separation distance between all vehicles which initially required further checking. Compare this distance to the sum of minimum safe clearance distances R1 and R2 for those vehicles at the new incremented time. […] Should the separation distance (42) between them be less than the sum of the minimal safe clearance distances R1+R2, then generate alert warning condition [procedure - checking differences between vehicles at risk for collision by vertical separation distance].)
and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination (Col. 41, lines 11-14: "If no minimum safe clearance distance is violated then continue checking the next set of vehicles in a similar fashion. When all vehicles pairs are checked then return to the start of the vehicle database [aircraft cleared for takeoff - no risk for collision].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al. and Sharma, et al. to include the teaching of Pilley, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve collision detection within an airport management system (Pilley, et al. Col. 3, lines 41-51).
Regarding claim 2, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the location of the intruder aircraft and the current velocity of the intruder aircraft are received from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) system (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0080]: "The trajectory determination module (244) may detect, track, and classify surrounding traffic as well as predict their behavior. The trajectory determination module (244) may receive data that includes ADS-B data [location/velocity of intruder aircraft received from ADS-B system]").
Regarding claim 3, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether the predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway is less than zero; (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0112]: "In FIGS. 3A - 3E, the location of the flight path vector (308) indicates that the ownship heading is in a direction that will avoid the rendered zone (300). As such, the avoidance GUIs in FIGS. 3A - 3E indicate that there is not a predicted conflict with other aircraft [determination that predicated lateral incursion probability is low or nonexistent (less than zero)].")
and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0028]: "…the avoidance system (200) may operate during takeoff and landing near airports, where there may be a high density of traffic and greater likelihood of aircraft maneuvering. In some implementations, the avoidance system (200) may be configured to operate in different manners, depending on the flight scenario (e.g., en-route, landing, takeoff, etc.) [proceed with take-off and landing based on determination]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0088]: "…different alerting levels may be associated with the different minimum separation distances, where more severe alerts may be used to indicate shorter predicted minimum distances between aircraft [alert based on determination].").
Regarding claim 9, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a safety margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on a horizontal plane of a flight path of the ego aircraft enables the ego aircraft to implement an emergency turn; (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0019]: "The avoidance system (200) may predict the trajectory of the ownship (100) and other aircraft (102-1), (102-2). The avoidance system (200) may determine whether the other aircraft will conflict with the ownship based on the predicted trajectories. A conflict between the ownship and another aircraft may refer to a scenario where the ownship and the other aircraft come within less than a threshold distance from one another (e.g., violate a minimum safe distance) [safety margin between ego aircraft and intruder aircraft heads gets below specific value]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0054]: "In some implementations, the FMS modules (224) may also include a contingency/emergency management module [emergency mode]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0136]: "FIG. 6B illustrates another example maneuver indicator (600-2) that indicates a direction for the ownship to avoid the conflict zone [turn to avoid collision].")
and generate a fifth directive alert to implement the emergency turn and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0136]: "…the avoidance system (200) and flight control system (210) may include automation for controlling the ownship. For example, if the pilot fails to steer the ownship when the ownship is nearing/entering a conflict zone, the autopilot may automatically steer the ownship away from the potential/realized conflict (e.g., according to the maneuver data) [implement emergency turn and avoid landing].")
Regarding claim 10, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the output device of the ego aircraft is one of a display device and a speaker (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0017]: "For example, the avoidance system (200) may render an avoidance graphical user interface (GUI) on an ownship display that the pilot may use to avoid conflicts with the other aircraft (102-1), (102-2) [display device].").
Regarding claim 11, Gariel, et al. teaches: A method of generating a collision avoidance directive comprising: providing a communication system, at least one geospatial sensor; and an output device of an ego aircraft; (Paragraph [0043]: "The ownship (100) of FIG. 2A includes : 1) sensors (204) [geospatial sensor], 2) communication systems (206) [communication system], […] 8) pilot input/output (I/O) (216) [output device].")
receiving a location and a velocity of an intruder aircraft via the communication system; (Blocks (260), (264), Paragraph [0103]: "FIG. 2E is a method that describes operation of the avoidance system illustrated in FIGS. 2C-2D. In block (260), the data processing module (242) acquires data from […] communication system(s) (206) [communication system], [...] In block (264), the trajectory determination module (244) determines trajectories of N other aircraft based on the state of the other aircraft and/or flight plans for the other aircraft [receiving location and velocity of intruder aircraft - trajectory components].")
receiving a current location and a velocity of the ego aircraft from the at least one geospatial sensor; (Paragraph [0060]: "The avoidance system (200) may use data from the […] sensors (204), […] in order to determine the historic / current state of the ownship and other aircraft [ego aircraft via sensor]. For example, the avoidance system (200) may determine historic/current attitude, position, and/or velocity of the ownship and other aircraft [current location and velocity from sensor].")
determining a time to collision, wherein the ego aircraft is expected to cross the incursion line on the runway at the time to collision, wherein the time to collision is based on the velocity of the ego aircraft and a distance between the current location of the ego aircraft and the incursion line; (Paragraph [0115]: "Additional example intruder aircraft information may include an available intruder tail number (e.g., N123AB), an aircraft type, an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B) [time to collision - incursion line]" ; Paragraph [0133]: "In some implementations, the avoidance GUI may use colors and/or patterns to indicate a level of urgency (e.g., a time to conflict) associated with a rendered zone [notification of time to collision - incursion line]." ; Paragraph [0135]: "…the maneuver indicator (600-1) may indicate a change in velocity vector for the ownship that may resolve the predicted conflict [velocity of ego aircraft]." ; Paragraph [0087]: "The conflict determination module (246) may include conflict parameters that define when a predicted/realized conflict may occur. For example, the conflict determination module (246) may include defined distance values (e.g., in meters) that define when two aircraft are in a conflict [...] Additionally, a second defined distance that is less than the first defined distance may be defined for a near mid-air collision (NMAC) [notification of time to collision - parameter of collision based on distance].")
generating a predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway based on the time to collision, the current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft, and the velocity of the intruder aircraft (Block (234), Paragraph [0069]: "In block (234), the avoidance system (200-1) performs conflict determination operations. The conflict determination operations may include determining whether one or more of the predicted trajectories of the other aircraft may conflict with the ownship trajectory. The conflict determination operations may also include determining whether any of the other aircraft are currently in conflict with the ownship [trajectory (time/velocity) and position prediction - lateral incursion]. The conflict determination operations may also include determining one or more conflict zones associated with the one or more determined conflicts.").
Gariel, et al. does not teach determining a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; defining an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; making a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion; generating a first directive alert to proceed with the one of a take-off and a landing via the runway to be output to an output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft conflict avoidance), Sharma, et al. teaches: determining a current lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto a runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; (Col. 9, lines 12-17: "Conflict detector (30) is configured to receive the current and predicted ownship, traffic, and obstacle [intruder aircraft] states from predictions processor (28) and determine whether there is or will be a conflict on the runway, taxiway, or other airport surface movement region between a protection zone around the ownship and the protection zones around traffic and obstacles [lateral incursion of intruder aircraft].")
defining an incursion line extending across the runway based on the location of the intruder aircraft; (Col. 9, lines 27-36: "Conformance monitor (32) may also be configured to monitor traffic conformance [intruder aircraft] with operational and alerting rules (48), runway or taxiway dimensions (42) received from runway/taxiway generator (18), traffic intent and clearances (41) received by the traffic surveillance processor (14) (e.g., is the traffic on the correct route, has the traffic violated any clearances like crossing a hold-line prior to receiving appropriate clearance, etc.) received from the traffic surveillance processor (16) [incursion line extending across runway]")
making a first determination whether a lateral margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on the runway at the time to collision is greater than a lateral margin tolerance, the lateral margin being based at least in part on the predicted lateral incursion; (Steps (110) – (112), Col. 10, lines 19-23: "At step (112), possible runway incursion alerts are computed based on the current and predicted ownship and target states of step (110), runway/taxiway geometry, operational and alerting rules (58), and/or ground alerts (50). If an error is encountered, RIA algorithm (100) may be terminated [predicted lateral incursion procedure]." ; Col. 10, lines 48-53: "If a conflict alert level is greater than the conformance alert level (e.g., based on ownship conflict alert level, target alert level, target conformance alert type), the degree to which the conflict level is greater than the conformance level may determine the overall alert level [margin between ego aircraft and intruder aircraft].")
generating a first directive alert to proceed with a take-off via the runway to be output to output device of the ego aircraft based on the first determination; (Steps (112) – (114), Col. 10, lines 40-44: "…any computed alerts from step (112) are managed and prioritized based on the alert type and/or alert level. For example, the conformance alert level may be set to one level if the conformance alert type is related to an unknown location, a taxiway takeoff or landing [generates alert for runway takeoff or landing]" ; Col. 10, lines 53-55: "The alert types and levels are then sent to the display processor (26) for output to one or more display (e.g., a SAD (23), and/or audio system (24)) [output to output device of ego aircraft].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gariel, et al. to include the teaching of Sharma, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of preventing conflict between the trajectories of aircraft (Sharma, et al. Col. 1, lines 16-25).
The combination of Gariel, et al. and Sharma, et al. does not teach making a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (airport management control), Pilley, et al. teaches: making a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; (Col. 41, lines 1-10: "Determine the new separation distance between all vehicles which initially required further checking. Compare this distance to the sum of minimum safe clearance distances R1 and R2 for those vehicles at the new incremented time. […] Should the separation distance (42) between them be less than the sum of the minimal safe clearance distances R1+R2, then generate alert warning condition [procedure - checking differences between vehicles at risk for collision by vertical separation distance].")
and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination (Col. 41, lines 11-14: "If no minimum safe clearance distance is violated then continue checking the next set of vehicles in a similar fashion. When all vehicles pairs are checked then return to the start of the vehicle database [aircraft cleared for takeoff - no risk for collision].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al. and Sharma, et al. to include the teaching of Pilley, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve collision detection within an airport management system (Pilley, et al. Col. 3, lines 41-51).
Regarding claim 12, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, further comprising receiving the location of the intruder aircraft and the current velocity of the intruder aircraft from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) system (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0080]: "The trajectory determination module (244) may detect, track, and classify surrounding traffic as well as predict their behavior. The trajectory determination module (244) may receive data that includes ADS-B data [location/velocity of intruder aircraft received from ADS-B system]").
Regarding claim 13, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether the predicted lateral incursion of the intruder aircraft onto the runway is less than zero; (Gariel, et al. Block (266), Paragraph [0104]: "In block (266), the conflict determination module (246) determines one or more conflict zones based on the predicted trajectories. If a conflict zone is not detected in block (266), the method continues in block (260) according to block (268) [determination that predicated lateral incursion probability is low or nonexistent (less than zero)].")
and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0028]: "…the avoidance system (200) may operate during takeoff and landing near airports, where there may be a high density of traffic and greater likelihood of aircraft maneuvering. In some implementations, the avoidance system (200) may be configured to operate in different manners, depending on the flight scenario (e.g., en-route, landing, takeoff, etc.) [proceed with take-off and landing based on determination]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0088]: "…different alerting levels may be associated with the different minimum separation distances, where more severe alerts may be used to indicate shorter predicted minimum distances between aircraft [alert based on determination].").
Regarding claim 19, Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a safety margin between the ego aircraft and the intruder aircraft on a horizontal plane of a flight path of the ego aircraft enables the ego aircraft to implement an emergency turn; (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0019]: "…avoidance system (200) may predict the trajectory of the ownship (100) and other aircraft (102-1), (102-2). The avoidance system (200) may determine whether the other aircraft will conflict with the ownship based on the predicted trajectories. A conflict between the ownship and another aircraft may refer to a scenario where the ownship and the other aircraft come within less than a threshold distance from one another (e.g., violate a minimum safe distance) [safety margin between ego aircraft and intruder aircraft heads gets below specific value]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0054]: "In some implementations, the FMS modules (224) may also include a contingency/emergency management module [emergency mode]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0136]: "FIG. 6B illustrates another example maneuver indicator (600-2) that indicates a direction for the ownship to avoid the conflict zone [turn to avoid collision].")
and generating a fifth directive alert to implement the emergency turn and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination (Gariel, et al. Block (240), Paragraph [0070]: "In block (240), the avoidance system (200-1) may calculate one or more resolution maneuvers and provide the pilot with the calculated resolution maneuvers, such as by rendering a maneuver indicator and/or providing other avoidance UI elements (e.g., audio) [implement emergency turn and abort landing; alert].").
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210350716), Sharma, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8019529), and Pilley, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6195609) in view of Fabre, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20080195301).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway; and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (runway incursion alerting system for aircraft), Fabre, et al. teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway; (Paragraph [0018]: "analyzing the risks of runway incursion related to the position of the aircraft and, possibly to its motion, and, in the event of detecting a risk or a runway intrusion, determining the appropriate alert or alarm and triggering its emission by the alerts and alarms emitter [analyzing lateral intrusion]." ; Paragraph [0046]: "…the device considers that the aircraft is on a runway when the component D.sub.RWY normal to the axis of the runway considered, of a vector joining the aircraft to the start of the runway considered, component termed axial distance of the aircraft with respect to the runway considered, is lower, in modulus, than the sum of a position error margin EPE allowed for the locating device, of the longitudinal distance ALR separating the front end of the aircraft from the airplane reference point used for its measurements, by the locating device, and of half the width of the runway RW.sub.RWY considered, and when the component L.sub.RWY parallel to the axis of the runway considered of the same vector, component termed longitudinal distance of the aircraft with respect to the runway considered, lies between the opposite of the error margin -EPE and the sum of the position error margin EPE and of the runway length RL.sub.RWY [determination of whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway]")
and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the one of the take-off and the landing based on the determination (Paragraph [0131]: "a computer (11) utilizing the information originating from the flight instruments (2), the locating device (3) and the airport database (10) to produce alerts and alarms relayed to the cockpit by the alerts and alarms emitters (4), (5) [generating alerts]" ; Paragraph [0133]: "This GCAM equipment (6), which is optional, is here assumed to furthermore ensure monitoring of the in-flight trajectory of the aircraft on the approach to an airport, either for a landing, or for a takeoff [proceed with landing or take-off]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Fabre, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of notifying an aircraft crew about normal or abnormal crossings as a result over the course of a flight maneuver (Fabre, et al. Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway; and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the one of the take-off and the landing based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (runway incursion alerting system for aircraft), Fabre, et al. teaches: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway; (Paragraph [0018]: "analyzing the risks of runway incursion related to the position of the aircraft and, possibly to its motion, and, in the event of detecting a risk or a runway intrusion, determining the appropriate alert or alarm and triggering its emission by the alerts and alarms emitter [analyzing lateral intrusion]." ; Paragraph [0046]: "…the device considers that the aircraft is on a runway when the component D.sub.RWY normal to the axis of the runway considered, of a vector joining the aircraft to the start of the runway considered, component termed axial distance of the aircraft with respect to the runway considered, is lower, in modulus, than the sum of a position error margin EPE allowed for the locating device, of the longitudinal distance ALR separating the front end of the aircraft from the airplane reference point used for its measurements, by the locating device, and of half the width of the runway RW.sub.RWY considered, and when the component L.sub.RWY parallel to the axis of the runway considered of the same vector, component termed longitudinal distance of the aircraft with respect to the runway considered, lies between the opposite of the error margin -EPE and the sum of the position error margin EPE and of the runway length RL.sub.RWY [determination of whether a sum of the predicted lateral intrusion, half a wing-span of the ego aircraft, and the lateral margin tolerance is less than half a width of the runway]")
and generating the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the determination (Paragraph [0131]: "a computer (11) utilizing the information originating from the flight instruments (2), the locating device (3) and the airport database (10) to produce alerts and alarms relayed to the cockpit by the alerts and alarms emitters (4), (5) [generating alerts]" ; Paragraph [0133]: "This GCAM equipment (6), which is optional, is here assumed to furthermore ensure monitoring of the in-flight trajectory of the aircraft on the approach to an airport, either for a landing, or for a takeoff [proceed with landing or take-off]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Fabre, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of notifying an aircraft crew about normal or abnormal crossings as a result over the course of a flight maneuver (Fabre, et al. Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210350716), Sharma, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8019529), and Pilley, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6195609) in view of Zammit-Mangion, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7158052).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. teaches: is less than a distance between a current location of the ego aircraft on the runway and the incursion line; (Sharma, et al. Col. 10, lines 19-23: "…possible runway incursion alerts are computed based on the current and predicted ownship and target states of step (110), runway/taxiway geometry, operational and alerting rules (58), and/or ground alerts (50). If an error is encountered, RIA algorithm (100) may be terminated [predicted lateral incursion determination procedure]." ; Sharma, et al. Col. 10, lines 48-53: "If a conflict alert level is greater than the conformance alert level (e.g., based on ownship conflict alert level, target alert level, target conformance alert type), the degree to which the conflict level is greater than the conformance level may determine the overall alert level [margin alert - less than safe distance between ego aircraft and incursion line on runway].").
The combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance; and generate a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (monitoring aircraft performance), Zammit-Mangion, et al. teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance (Col. 11, lines 23-30: "To summarise, acceleration data is acquired throughout the take-off run, the speed of the aircraft and the distance travelled since the beginning of the run is determined for each of those values by a process of integration, and this data is stored. The sampling rate of typically 10 Hz is high, particularly as compared to the duration of the run (up to 60 seconds) and the response time of the aircraft (a few seconds) [response time distance of ego aircraft]." ; Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance].")
and generate a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination (Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance]. It should be noted that because under-performance is detected well before the aircraft reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit, the decision could be taken to abandon the take-off while there is still a sufficient length of runway available for the aircraft to be brought safely to a halt [decision to stop ego aircraft on runway and abort take-off].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Zammit-Mangion, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the monitoring of the mechanical performance of an aircraft during runway movements (Zammit-Mangion, et al. Col. 4, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. teaches: is less than a distance between a touchdown location on the runway and the incursion line; (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0039]: "Although a runway (104) is illustrated, other touchdown areas may include, but are not limited to, a heliport, a vertiport, a seaport, unprepared landing areas, and a moving touchdown area (e.g., an aircraft carrier). Although a single runway at a single airport is illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more airports may each include one or more runways [touchdown location]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0087]: "The conflict determination module (246) may include conflict parameters that define when a predicted/realized conflict may occur. For example, the conflict determination module (246) may include defined distance values (e.g., in meters) that define when two aircraft are in a conflict.")
and generate a fourth directive alert to proceed with a landing based on the determination (Paragraph [0028]: "…the avoidance system (200) may operate during takeoff and landing near airports, where there may be a high density of traffic and greater likelihood of aircraft maneuvering. In some implementations, the avoidance system (200) may be configured to operate in different manners, depending on the flight scenario (e.g., en-route, landing) [proceed with landing based on determination]." ; Paragraph [0088]: "…different alerting levels may be associated with the different minimum separation distances, where more severe alerts may be used to indicate shorter predicted minimum distances between aircraft [alert based on determination].").
The combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance.
In a similar field of endeavor (monitoring aircraft performance), Zammit-Mangion, et al. teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time distance and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance (Col. 11, lines 23-30: "To summarise, acceleration data is acquired throughout the take-off run, the speed of the aircraft and the distance travelled since the beginning of the run is determined for each of those values by a process of integration, and this data is stored. The sampling rate of typically 10 Hz is high, particularly as compared to the duration of the run (up to 60 seconds) and the response time of the aircraft (a few seconds) [response time distance of ego aircraft]." ; Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Zammit-Mangion, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the monitoring of the mechanical performance of an aircraft during runway movements (Zammit-Mangion, et al. Col. 4, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. teaches: is less than a distance between a current location of the ego aircraft on the runway and the incursion line (Sharma, et al. Col. 10, lines 19-23: "At step (112), possible runway incursion alerts are computed based on the current and predicted ownship and target states of step (110), runway/taxiway geometry, operational and alerting rules (58), and/or ground alerts (50). If an error is encountered, RIA algorithm (100) may be terminated [predicted lateral incursion determination procedure]." ; Sharma, et al. Col. 10, lines 48-53: "If a conflict alert level is greater than the conformance alert level (e.g., based on ownship conflict alert level, target alert level, target conformance alert type), the degree to which the conflict level is greater than the conformance level may determine the overall alert level [margin alert - less than safe distance between ego aircraft and incursion line on runway].").
The combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance; and generating a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (monitoring aircraft performance), Zammit-Mangion, et al. teaches: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance (Col. 11, lines 23-30: "To summarise, acceleration data is acquired throughout the take-off run, the speed of the aircraft and the distance travelled since the beginning of the run is determined for each of those values by a process of integration, and this data is stored. The sampling rate of typically 10 Hz is high, particularly as compared to the duration of the run (up to 60 seconds) and the response time of the aircraft (a few seconds) [response time distance of ego aircraft]." ; Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance]. ")
and generating a second directive alert to stop the ego aircraft on the runway and abort the take-off to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination (Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance]. It should be noted that because under-performance is detected well before the aircraft reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit, the decision could be taken to abandon the take-off while there is still a sufficient length of runway available for the aircraft to be brought safely to a halt [decision to stop ego aircraft on runway and abort take-off].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Zammit-Mangion, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the monitoring of the mechanical performance of an aircraft during runway movements (Zammit-Mangion, et al. Col. 4, lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. teaches: is less than a distance between a touchdown location on the runway and the incursion line; (Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0039]: "Although a runway (104) is illustrated, other touchdown areas may include, but are not limited to, a heliport, a vertiport, a seaport, unprepared landing areas, and a moving touchdown area (e.g., an aircraft carrier). Although a single runway at a single airport is illustrated in FIG. 1, one or more airports may each include one or more runways [touchdown location]." ; Gariel, et al. Paragraph [0087]: "The conflict determination module (246) may include conflict parameters that define when a predicted/realized conflict may occur. For example, the conflict determination module (246) may include defined distance values (e.g., in meters) that define when two aircraft are in a conflict.")
and generating a fourth directive alert to proceed with a landing based on the determination (Paragraph [0028]: "…the avoidance system (200) may operate during takeoff and landing near airports, where there may be a high density of traffic and greater likelihood of aircraft maneuvering. In some implementations, the avoidance system (200) may be configured to operate in different manners, depending on the flight scenario (e.g., en-route, landing) [proceed with landing based on determination]." ; Paragraph [0088]: "…different alerting levels may be associated with the different minimum separation distances, where more severe alerts may be used to indicate shorter predicted minimum distances between aircraft [alert based on determination].").
The combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance.
In a similar field of endeavor (monitoring aircraft performance), Zammit-Mangion, et al. teaches: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a sum of an ego aircraft response time and a maximum ego aircraft stopping distance (Col. 11, lines 23-30: "To summarise, acceleration data is acquired throughout the take-off run, the speed of the aircraft and the distance travelled since the beginning of the run is determined for each of those values by a process of integration, and this data is stored. The sampling rate of typically 10 Hz is high, particularly as compared to the duration of the run (up to 60 seconds) and the response time of the aircraft (a few seconds) [response time distance of ego aircraft]." ; Col. 8, lines 47-56: "The extrapolation therefore provides an indication that the aircraft will be unable to achieve the decision speed V.sub.1 before it reaches the critical distance D.sub.crit. This implies that there would be insufficient distance available to safely either continue to a safe take-off or to stop from the decision speed, V.sub.1 [maximum ego aircraft stopping distance].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Zammit-Mangion, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the monitoring of the mechanical performance of an aircraft during runway movements (Zammit-Mangion, et al. Col. 4, lines 18-23).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gariel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210350716), Sharma, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8019529), and Pilley, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6195609) in view of Schultz, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100292871).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether an altitude of the ego aircraft along a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to a height of the intruder aircraft at the incursion line; and generate a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort the landing to be output to the output device the ego aircraft based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft collision avoidance and interception), Schultz, et al. teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein, the at least one memory comprises instructions that upon execution by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: determine whether an altitude of the ego aircraft along a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to a height of the intruder aircraft at the incursion line; (Paragraph [0069]: "…the collision emergency threshold defines the boundaries of the collision volume. The collision volume can be a cylindrical volume of airspace centered on the aircraft with a horizontal radius of 500 feet and a vertical height of 200 feet (±100 feet). A threat is an obstacle determined to pose a collision risk (e.g., an obstacle within the self-separation threshold T.sub.ss). Different threats can have different thresholds [height threshold measurement]." ; Paragraph [0070]: "If at decision block (230) it is determined that the aircraft is not below the collision emergency threshold T.sub.ce, then at decision block (240) a determination is made whether or not the aircraft is below a collision avoidance threshold T.sub.ca with respect to threats." ; Paragraph [0094]: "…guidance routine (200) shown in FIG. 3 determines which behavior to activate if the proposed guidance method is used. Performing the trajectory adjustments of block (261) can trigger the "reach target" behavior or any other behavior used to maneuver the aircraft back onto its intended trajectory for the purpose of station keeping and interception of targets, […] landing [aborted landing because of avoidance maneuver]")
and generate a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort a landing to be output to the output device the ego aircraft based on the determination (Paragraph [0073]: "If at decision block (260) it is determined that the aircraft is above the intended trajectory threshold, then at block (261) a trajectory adjustment procedure is performed, maneuvering the aircraft back onto its intended trajectory [flying over intruder and aborting landing to avoid collision]." ; Paragraph [0039]: "The command and control system (60) is configured to display aircraft status, navigation and surveillance information, alerts [generate alert], and guidance commands […] to control the aircraft.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. to include the teaching of Schultz, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the operational capabilities and safety of aircraft by detecting and avoiding collisions (Schultz, et al. Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. does not teach the method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to the intruder aircraft; and generating a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft collision avoidance and interception), Schultz, et al. teaches: The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining whether a flight path of the ego aircraft during an aborted landing is greater than a height threshold with respect to the intruder aircraft; (Routine (200), Blocks (230) - (261), Paragraph [0069]: "…the collision emergency threshold defines the boundaries of the collision volume. The collision volume can be a cylindrical volume of airspace centered on the aircraft with a horizontal radius of 500 feet and a vertical height of 200 feet (±100 feet). A threat is an obstacle determined to pose a collision risk (e.g., an obstacle within the self-separation threshold T.sub.ss). Different threats can have different thresholds [height threshold measurement]." ; Paragraph [0070]: "If at decision block (230) it is determined that the aircraft is not below the collision emergency threshold T.sub.ce, then at decision block (240) a determination is made whether or not the aircraft is below a collision avoidance threshold T.sub.ca with respect to threats." ; Paragraph [0094]: "…guidance routine (200) shown in FIG. 3 determines which behavior to activate if the proposed guidance method is used. Performing the trajectory adjustments of block (261) can trigger the "reach target" behavior or any other behavior used to maneuver the aircraft back onto its intended trajectory for the purpose of station keeping and interception of targets, […] landing [aborted landing because of avoidance maneuver]")
and generating a third directive alert to fly over the intruder aircraft and abort a landing to be output to the output device of the ego aircraft based on the determination (Block (260), Paragraph [0073]: "If at decision block (260) it is determined that the aircraft is above the intended trajectory threshold, then at block (261) a trajectory adjustment procedure is performed, maneuvering the aircraft back onto its intended trajectory [flying over intruder and aborting landing to avoid collision]." ; Paragraph [0039]: "The command and control system (60) is configured to display aircraft status, navigation and surveillance information, alerts [generate alert], and guidance commands […] to control the aircraft.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley et al. to include the teaching of Schultz, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the operational capabilities and safety of aircraft by detecting and avoiding collisions (Schultz, et al. Paragraph [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Gariel, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210350716) in view of Sharma, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8019529) because the references did not meet the claim limitations “make a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination”. Please note that Pilley, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6195609) was cited in order to teach these features. In Pilley, et al., a determination is made with respect to the aircraft vertical distances by “…determine the new separation distance between all vehicles” through the process of “…compare this distance to the sum of minimum safe clearance distances R1 and R2 for those vehicles at the new incremented time”, in which an analysis is made such that “…should the separation distance (42) between them be less than the sum of the minimal safe clearance distances R1+R2, then generate alert warning condition (Col. 41, lines 1-10). As a result, “…If no minimum safe clearance distance is violated then continue checking the next set of vehicles in a similar fashion”, and the designated aircraft is cleared for take-off (Col. 41, lines 11-14). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Pilley, et al. with Gariel, et al. and Sharma, et al. because Gariel, et al. teaches a collision avoidance system (Paragraph [0071]) which predicts a lateral incursion of an intruder aircraft onto a runway based on a time to collision, a current lateral incursion, and an aircraft velocity (Paragraph [0069]) and Sharma, et al. teaches the determination of a take-off protocol based on a lateral margin tolerance measurement and a predicted lateral incursion value between an ego aircraft and an intruder aircraft on a runway (Col. 10, lines 19-55).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Gariel, et al., Sharma, et al., and Pilley, et al. reads on the claim limitations “make a second determination whether a difference between an altitude of the ego aircraft and a height of the intruder aircraft is greater than a height threshold at the incursion line during the take-off; and generate the first directive alert to proceed with the take-off based on the second determination”, as stated in amended claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100109936) teaches a system and method for avoiding aircraft collisions using a ground-based monitoring station, a mobile unit which produces position-dependent signals of an object to the station, a collision prediction unit which takes the position-dependent signals and the static position data of the airport infrastructure to predict collisions, and a warning unit coupled to the collision prediction unit which conveys a respective warning to the one or more mobile objects to allow evasive action.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663