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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments and arguments filed on October 6, 2025. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11-13, 16, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on October 6, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for Claims 1-20 have been withdrawn. However, in light of the amended claims, new 35 U.S.C 112 (a) or (b) rejections have been added for Claims 1-20.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed on October 6, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the following reasons:
Regarding the statement that Campbell 1 does not teach “…changing display of the GUI in real-time responsive to receiving command message including a status of a de-icing event…”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Campbell 1 describes features for a pilot device to display real-time updates regarding the de-icing progress (Paragraph 0068, “The de-icing module 222 may also have the pilot device 230 display this completeness information to the pilot”). However, the examiner agrees that Campbell 1 does not appear to explicitly recite the amended limitations for displaying location/status of the airplane, designating a communication frequency, and automatically switching to a second communication frequency. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. Upon further consideration of the applicant’s amended claims, new ground(s) of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of the additional art of US20210090443A1 (Viswanath et al.) have been made as shown in the updated mapping.
Also, the examiner respectfully notes that the limitations for automatically switching to a second communication frequency (“…wherein the control unit is configured to change one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency aircraft responsive to completion of the de-icing event”) amended into claim 1 appears to be new matter not supported by the closest found support from the specification. Therefore, in light of the amended claims, claims 1-10 and 20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, claims 11-19 were not included under the new matter rejection as the method described in claim 11, under broadest reasonable interpretation, does not appear to claim automatic switching of frequencies (e.g. the method may be performed by the pilot, as described by Figure 5 and Paragraph 0067 of the instant specification). Campbell 1 describes features that meet this as Campbell 1 allows a pilot to manually tune into a specific frequency once de-icing is completed (Paragraph 0070, “When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”).
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:
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;
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
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) are:
communication system (“configured to…”)
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.
Support for the limitation(s) are as follows:
Paragraph 0022: For example, the first communication system 122 can include and/or represent one or more antennas, transceivers, radios, and/or the like.
Paragraph 0030: In at least one example, the de-icing system 130 includes a second communication system 132 that can include and/or represent one or more antennas, transceivers, radios, and/or the like.
Examiner is interpreting claim limitations as follows:
communication system: Antennas, transceivers, radios, and/or the like.
If the 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 (“…wherein the control unit is configured to change one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency aircraft responsive to completion of the de-icing event”), 3 (“…and the control unit changing the one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at the second communication frequency) and 20 (“cause one or more control units comprising a processor, to perform operations comprising…changing one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency responsive to receiving the completion notice”) contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The closest support found in the instant specification appears to describe instructing a pilot to manually change frequencies (Paragraph 0067, “The completion notice 552 can include one or more instructions to the pilot, such as, but not limited to…instructions to change the frequency of the first communication system 122 to a different frequency such as to communicate with a central monitoring location (e.g., a control tower) or with an air traffic controller…”). Furthermore, Figure 5 (drawing 6/7) also appear to describe instructing the pilot to change frequencies upon completion of de-icing. Therefore, the specification fails to provide support for a control unit to perform the amended limitations in claims 1, 3, and 20 recited above, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of those amended limitations would be the control unit automatically switching from the first communication frequency to the second communication frequency upon completing de-icing.
Regarding claims 2-10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “…wherein receiving the one or more command messages is configured to automatically trigger the control unit to change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the control unit. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 12-19, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US20150081141A1; hereinafter Campbell 1) in view of Campbell (US20230219698A1; hereinafter Campbell 2), Viswanath et al. (US20210090443A1; hereinafter Viswanath) and Borup et al. (US20190202568A1; hereinafter Borup).
Regarding Claim 1 (Independent), Campbell 1 discloses a method for coordinating a de-icing process of an aircraft (Abstract, “A method for coordinating contamination removal on a surface of an aircraft”) comprising:
a first communication system configured to be onboard an aircraft (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0056 describes a communication network connecting a plurality of devices, wherein one of the connected devices is reasonably configured to be onboard an aircraft (e.g. “pilot device 230” for use by a pilot); Paragraph 0061 describes each device as including systems such as “smart phones” which reasonably include communicative features such as antennas, transceivers, etc.);
a graphical user interface (GUI) including a display screen (Paragraph 0054, “The pilot device 230 may include a processor 232, a memory 234, a display 236 and an input 238”; Paragraph 0063 describes a graphical user interface (“To receive the request, the request module 218 may provide instructions to the pilot via the pilot device 230 by displaying a graphical representation of the aircraft to the pilot”));
wherein the first communication system is configured to establish a bi-directional communication link with a second communication system of a de-icing system [responsive to the control unit determining that the de-icing event is required] (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0056 describes a communication network connecting a plurality of devices, wherein one of the connected devices is reasonably configured to be off-board an aircraft in a de-icing system (e.g. “contamination removal personnel device 240” for use by contamination removal personnel that performs de-icing); Paragraph 0056 further recites “The system 208, the pilot device 230, the contamination removal device 240 and the CTM device 250 are preferably connected over a network 260 to send and receive data as required by the system 208);
wherein the first communication system is configured to receive one or more command messages from the second communication system indicating a status of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0068 describes the “pilot device” as receiving progress updates (“completeness information”) from the “contamination removal personnel device” based on the status of the de-icing operation).
While Campbell 1 further discloses: a control unit having one or more processors (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0058, “system 208” having “processor 210”), Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose at least: wherein the control unit is configured to display via the display screen of the GUI [a status of one or more systems of the aircraft], and wherein the control unit is configured to automatically change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event responsive to receiving the one or more command messages.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 teaches automating the de-icing process of an aircraft through a control unit (Abstract; Figure 1 and Paragraph 0036, “The system 100 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 102 that may be seen as a de-icing functionality platform”) comprising:
wherein the control unit is configured to display via the display screen of the GUI [a status of one or more systems of the aircraft] (Paragraph 0127 describes displaying a status (e.g. treatment type/level) of one or more systems (e.g. surface) (“In some embodiments, as the treatment proceeds, the pilot application or module may display updates with respect to the surfaces that are being, or have been treated, fluid types and amount”); Examiner notes that a surface condition is reasonably indicative of a status of a system of the aircraft);
wherein the control unit is configured to automatically change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event responsive to receiving the one or more command messages (Paragraph 0039, “The pilot module 106 may be used for, but not limited to, requesting de-icing/anti-icing, receiving a treatment plan relating to the request for de-icing/anti-icing and for monitoring or displaying updates of the de-icing/anti-icing process as it is being performed such as by receiving updates from the CPU 102 with respect to the de-icing/anti-icing being performed on the aircraft… In other embodiments, the pilot may be provided with a default treatment plan template by the system 102 where the pilot may update the treatment plan template by selecting areas of the aircraft the pilot wishes to receive de-icing/anti-icing treatment or to respond to other questions or to fill in requested information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for displaying de-icing information (Paragraph 0065, “The system 208 can have the pilot device 230 display the request and receive the requested input in various ways, including, but not limited to, displaying graphically as color changes on the image of the aircraft, as a text list of the input, as a table representing the possible input choices, and the like”) to further display the de-icing progress, as taught by Campbell 2, for the benefit of improving pilot awareness of the aircraft’s condition (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0081).
While Campbell 1 further discloses features for adjusting communication frequencies responsive to completion of de-icing event (Paragraph 0070, “When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”), Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach at least: displaying a location of the aircraft; communicating at a first communication frequency; and wherein the control unit is configured to change one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency.
Nevertheless, Viswanath teaches features for tuning between various communication frequencies at an airport (Paragraph 0024, “This system is configured to significantly reduce flight crew workload by eliminating manual tuning of communication frequency during each handoff from one ATC entity to another and can help prevent the flight crew from tuning to an incorrect frequency”) comprising:
wherein the control unit is configured to display via the display screen of the GUI a location of the aircraft (Paragraph 0030, “The AMMD displays the aerial vehicle's current location at the center of a moving map that depicts the ground space at the airport”);
communicating at a first communication frequency and wherein the control unit is configured to change one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency (Paragraph 0043 describes an aircraft switching from a first communication frequency with an entity to a second communication frequency with a different entity (“…a determination is made regarding whether the flight crew would like to tune a COM radio to another frequency from the list (decision 324)…The system instructs the radio interface controller to tune the selected COM radio to the selected frequency (operation 328), the selected COM radio is tuned to the selected frequency automatically (operation 330) without the flight crew having to manually tune a COM radio to a frequency”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for adjusting the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features that allow displaying a location of the aircraft and automatically tuning to a second communication frequency, as taught by Viswanath, for the benefit of expediting communication handover (Viswanath, Paragraph 0024).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach that the control unit is: configured to determine that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, Borup teaches an icing control system (Abstract):
configured to determine that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of the aircraft (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0150, “Whether or not anti-icing or de-icing is performed may be predetermined prior to each flight based on the weather conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for analyzing weather data (Paragraph 0078, “…The system may benefit from input from meteorological systems which relate information such as, but not limited to, temperature, ice and snow conditions”) to determine when de-icing is needed based on weather conditions, as taught by Borup, for the well-known benefit of de-icing a vehicle when icy conditions are present.
Regarding Claim 11 (Independent), Campbell 1 discloses a method for coordinating a de-icing process of an aircraft (Abstract, “A method for coordinating contamination removal on a surface of an aircraft”) comprising:
displaying, via a display screen of a graphical user interface (GUI) (Paragraph 0054, “The pilot device 230 may include a processor 232, a memory 234, a display 236 and an input 238”; Paragraph 0063 describes a graphical user interface (“To receive the request, the request module 218 may provide instructions to the pilot via the pilot device 230 by displaying a graphical representation of the aircraft to the pilot”));
establishing a bi-directional communication link between a first communication system configured to be onboard the aircraft and a second communication system of a de-icing system configured to be off-board the aircraft [responsive to determining that de-icing event is required] (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0056 describes a communication network connecting a plurality of devices, wherein one of the connected devices is reasonably onboard an aircraft (e.g. “pilot device 230” for use by a pilot) and another device off-board the aircraft in a de-icing system (e.g. “contamination removal personnel device 240” for use by contamination removal personnel) once de-icing is deemed necessary; Paragraph 0056 further recites “The system 208, the pilot device 230, the contamination removal device 240 and the CTM device 250 are preferably connected over a network 260 to send and receive data as required by the system 208”);
receiving one or more command messages indicating a status of the de-icing even (Paragraph 0068 describes the “pilot device” as receiving progress updates (“completeness information”) from the “contamination removal personnel device” based on the status of the de-icing operation).
While Campbell 1 further discloses: the control unit (Figure 2 and Paragraphs 0057-0058, “system 208” having “processor 210”), Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose at least: displaying a status of one or more systems of the aircraft, and wherein receiving the one or more command messages is configured to automatically trigger the control unit to change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 teaches automating the de-icing process of an aircraft (see at least Abstract) comprising:
displaying a status of one or more systems of the aircraft (Paragraph 0127 describes displaying a status (e.g. treatment type/level) of one or more systems (e.g. surface) (“In some embodiments, as the treatment proceeds, the pilot application or module may display updates with respect to the surfaces that are being, or have been treated, fluid types and amount”); Examiner notes that a surface condition is reasonably indicative of a status of a system of the aircraft);
wherein receiving the one or more command messages is configured to automatically trigger the control unit to change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0039, “The pilot module 106 may be used for, but not limited to, requesting de-icing/anti-icing, receiving a treatment plan relating to the request for de-icing/anti-icing and for monitoring or displaying updates of the de-icing/anti-icing process as it is being performed such as by receiving updates from the CPU 102 with respect to the de-icing/anti-icing being performed on the aircraft… In other embodiments, the pilot may be provided with a default treatment plan template by the system 102 where the pilot may update the treatment plan template by selecting areas of the aircraft the pilot wishes to receive de-icing/anti-icing treatment or to respond to other questions or to fill in requested information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for displaying de-icing information (Paragraph 0065, “The system 208 can have the pilot device 230 display the request and receive the requested input in various ways, including, but not limited to, displaying graphically as color changes on the image of the aircraft, as a text list of the input, as a table representing the possible input choices, and the like”) to further display the de-icing progress, as taught by Campbell 2, for the benefit of improving pilot awareness of the aircraft’s condition (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0081).
While Campbell 1 further discloses features for manually adjusting communication frequencies by changing one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency responsive to completion of de-icing event (Paragraph 0070, “When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”; Examiner notes that as currently claimed and supported by the instant specification (Figure 5 and Paragraph 0067), the limitation is being interpreted as a pilot manually changing frequency), Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach at least: displaying a location of the aircraft and that communication occurs at a first communication frequency.
Nevertheless, Viswanath teaches features for tuning between various communication frequencies at an airport (Paragraph 0024, “This system is configured to significantly reduce flight crew workload by eliminating manual tuning of communication frequency during each handoff from one ATC entity to another and can help prevent the flight crew from tuning to an incorrect frequency”) comprising:
wherein the control unit is configured to display via the display screen of the GUI a location of the aircraft (Paragraph 0030, “The AMMD displays the aerial vehicle's current location at the center of a moving map that depicts the ground space at the airport”);
communication occurs at a first communication frequency (Paragraph 0043 describes an aircraft switching from a first communication frequency with an entity to a second communication frequency with a different entity (“…a determination is made regarding whether the flight crew would like to tune a COM radio to another frequency from the list (decision 324)…The system instructs the radio interface controller to tune the selected COM radio to the selected frequency (operation 328), the selected COM radio is tuned to the selected frequency automatically (operation 330) without the flight crew having to manually tune a COM radio to a frequency”); Examiner notes that switching to another frequency necessarily indicates that a first frequency was used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for adjusting the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features that allow displaying a location of the aircraft and defining distinct communication frequencies with different entities, as taught by Viswanath, for the benefit of expediting communication handover (Viswanath, Paragraph 0024).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: determining that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of the aircraft.
Nevertheless, Borup teaches an icing control system (Abstract):
determining that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of the aircraft (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0150, “Whether or not anti-icing or de-icing is performed may be predetermined prior to each flight based on the weather conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for analyzing weather data (Paragraph 0078, “…The system may benefit from input from meteorological systems which relate information such as, but not limited to, temperature, ice and snow conditions”) to determine when de-icing is needed based on weather conditions, as taught by Borup, for the well-known benefit of de-icing a vehicle when icy conditions are present.
Regarding Claim 2, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 1. Campbell 1 further discloses:
wherein the first communication system is configured to receive a completion notice from the second communication system, the completion notice indicating the completion of the de-icing event (Paragraphs 0068-0070 describes receiving completeness information (“The de-icing module 222 may also have the pilot device 230 display this completeness information to the pilot”) and a message responsive to completion (“When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”) which reasonably indicate a completion notice).
Regarding Claim 4, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 2. Campbell 1 further discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to change display of the GUI to display one or more instructions for controlling operation of the aircraft responsive to receiving the completion notice indicating the completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0070 describes displaying instructions to the pilot upon completing the de-icing event (“When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”)).
Regarding Claim 12, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 11. Campbell 1 further discloses:
receiving a completion notice indicating completion of the de-icing event and changing display of the GUI to display one or more instructions for controlling operation of the aircraft responsive to receiving the completion notice indicating the completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0070 describes displaying instructions to the pilot upon completing the de-icing event (“When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”)).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claims 4 and 12. Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose: wherein the one or more instructions include a transit deadline, wherein the aircraft is required to depart before the transit deadline (Examiner notes that a transit deadline is being interpreted as the holdover time, which is consistent with Paragraph 0066 of the instant specification (“For example, the holdover time for the aircraft can represent the transit deadline (e.g., a maximum allowed time before the aircraft 102 is required to takeoff or depart from the airport 200)…”)).
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
wherein the one or more instructions include a transit deadline, wherein the aircraft is required to depart before the transit deadline (Paragraph 0079 describes a planned holdover time (“HOT” or “Holdover Time”) for preventing ice from being present on the surface of the aircraft at take-off (“…the treatment plan engine may take into account the time to taxi and take off in determining the treatment plan (or treatment plan template) such that the aircraft will not have any ice on its surface during the taxiing and take-off time…The output of the treatment plan, or treatment plan template, may include the fluid types versus the aircraft surfaces to be treated, and time predictions of the HOT, the time the aircraft will spend in the queue prior to de-icing (queuing time), the expected time to deice, such as processing time in the DDF and the time to take-off”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow a holdover time to be determined. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the features taught by Campbell 2 to ensure that ice is not present on an aircraft during taxiing or take-off (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 7, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 1. Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control unit is configured to select one or more materials to be used in the de-icing event, the one or more materials that are selected based on the one or more ambient conditions.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
wherein the control unit is configured to select one or more materials to be used in the de-icing event, the one or more materials that are selected based on the one or more ambient conditions (Paragraph 0079 describes selecting a material to be used for the de-icing treatment (“the treatment plan engine 104 analyzes the weather input 400 with respect to the other inputs 402, 404, and 406 to determine any upcoming weather pattern that may affect the decisions with respect to de-icing of the aircraft. For instance, if the aircraft has a take-off time within the next 30 minutes but there is a forecast of more snow in the next 20 minutes, the treatment plan engine 104 may determine that a specific de-icing fluid is required, such as Type 4 anti-icing fluid instead of Type 1 de-icing fluid”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow a material to be selected. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the features taught by Campbell 2 to further streamline the de-icing process by allowing a material automatically based on weather information (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claim 16, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 11. Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose: receiving a selection, via the GUI, of one or more materials to be used in the de-icing event, the one or more materials that are selected based on the one or more ambient conditions.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
receiving a selection, via the GUI, of one or more materials to be used in the de-icing event, the one or more materials that are selected based on the one or more ambient conditions (Paragraph 0079 describes selecting a material to be used for the de-icing treatment (“the treatment plan engine 104 analyzes the weather input 400 with respect to the other inputs 402, 404, and 406 to determine any upcoming weather pattern that may affect the decisions with respect to de-icing of the aircraft. For instance, if the aircraft has a take-off time within the next 30 minutes but there is a forecast of more snow in the next 20 minutes, the treatment plan engine 104 may determine that a specific de-icing fluid is required, such as Type 4 anti-icing fluid instead of Type 1 de-icing fluid”); Paragraph 0080 describes determining the materials via pilot selection (“The pilot may either accept the treatment plan or provide further amendments to the plan. The accepted, or amended, treatment plan is then received by the treatment plan engine (and necessary updates made) and distributed to at least one de-icing operator or vehicle to execute the treatment plan”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow a material to be selected. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the features taught by Campbell 2 to further streamline the de-icing process by allowing a material automatically based on weather information (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0079).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claims 7 and 16. Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose: wherein the first communication system is configured to communicate a command message to the second communication system indicating the one or more materials that are selected for the de-icing event.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
wherein the first communication system is configured to communicate a command message to the second communication system indicating the one or more materials that are selected for the de-icing event (Paragraph 0079-0080 describes communicating a treatment plan, which includes a selected material (“The output of the treatment plan, or treatment plan template, may include the fluid types versus the aircraft surfaces to be treated, and time predictions of the HOT, the time the aircraft will spend in the queue prior to de-icing (queuing time), the expected time to deice, such as processing time in the DDF and the time to take-off…After being created, the treatment plan engine transmits the plan, or template, for review by a de-icing coordinator by displaying it on the de-icing coordinator module”); Examiner notes that communicating a selected material necessarily indicates that one or more materials are selected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow selected materials to be transmitted. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the features taught by Campbell 2 to further streamline the de-icing process by allowing a material selection to be communicated automatically (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0079-0080).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claims 1 and 11. Campbell 1 as currently modified does not explicitly teach wherein the status of the one or more systems includes one or more of a setting of a power system of the aircraft, a brake setting of the aircraft, a setting of the first communication system, an engine setting of a propulsion system of the aircraft, a time at which the engine setting changed, a setting of a thermal management system of the aircraft, or the setting of the thermal management system relative to the engine setting.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
wherein the status of the one or more systems includes one or more of a setting of a power system of the aircraft, a brake setting of the aircraft, a setting of the first communication system, an engine setting of a propulsion system of the aircraft, a time at which the engine setting changed, a setting of a thermal management system of the aircraft, or the setting of the thermal management system relative to the engine setting (Paragraph 0064 describes determining a braking setting of the aircraft indicating (“As shown in FIG. 3g, the system may include indicators to determine when it is safe for the treatment to commence. For example, the system may include sensors to determine when the brakes on the aircraft are set”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow a control unit to determine a status of an aircraft, including a brake setting. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the feature taught by Campbell 2 to further streamline the de-icing process by including features that allow checking a status of one or more systems.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell 1 in view of Campbell 2, Viswanath, Borup and Tengler et al. (US20090170434A1; hereinafter Tengler).
Regarding Claim 3, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 2. While Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches performing control responsive to a completion notice (Paragraph 0101, “When de-icing operations are complete…the CPU 102 may then take over control of the movement of the aircraft”), Campbell 1 as currently modified does not explicitly recite: wherein the control unit is configured to open the bi-directional communication link responsive to first communication system receiving the completion notice and the control unit changing the one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at the second communication frequency, wherein the first communication system is prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening.
Nevertheless, Viswanath further teaches:
the control unit changing the one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at the second communication frequency (Paragraph 0054, “The disclosed apparatus, systems, techniques, methods and articles can build a list of communication channel identifiers (e.g., frequencies or telephone numbers) that are specific to the physical controller (e.g., air traffic control (ATC)) entities and services that service the geographical area in which the aerial vehicle such as an aerial vehicle is traversing at or around an airport or other airdrome. The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can interact with an airport moving map display (AMMD) or airdrome map to assist the flight crew with automatically tuning to a required communication (COM) frequency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for adjusting the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features for automatically tuning to a second communication frequency, as taught by Viswanath, for the benefit of expediting communication handover (Viswanath, Paragraph 0024).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: [wherein the control unit is configured to open the bi-directional communication link responsive to first communication system receiving the completion notice] wherein the first communication system is configured to be prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening.
Nevertheless, Tengler teaches vehicle-to-vehicle communication wherein the vehicles may be aircraft (Abstract; Paragraph 0015) comprising:
[wherein the control unit is configured to open the bi-directional communication link responsive to first communication system receiving the completion notice] wherein the first communication system is configured to be prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening (Paragraph 0037, “After the communication has completed, or if the vehicles 12, 13 are no longer within range, the communications link is terminated at 118”; Examiner notes that terminating communication link necessarily indicates prohibiting communication from a first communication system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for changing the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features for terminating unused communication links, as taught by Tengler, for the benefit of preventing an unnecessarily prolonged communication connection.
Regarding Claim 13, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 2. Campbell 1 further discloses:
changing the one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at the second communication frequency (Paragraph 0070, “When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: [opening the bi-directional communication link responsive to receiving the completion notice], wherein the first communication system is configured to be prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening.
Nevertheless, Tengler teaches vehicle-to-vehicle communication wherein the vehicles may be aircraft (Abstract; Paragraph 0015) comprising:
[opening the bi-directional communication link responsive to receiving the completion notice], wherein the first communication system is configured to be prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening (Paragraph 0037, “After the communication has completed, or if the vehicles 12, 13 are no longer within range, the communications link is terminated at 118”; Examiner notes that terminating communication link necessarily indicates prohibiting communication from a first communication system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for changing the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features for terminating unused communication links, as taught by Tengler, for the benefit of preventing an unnecessarily prolonged communication connection.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell 1 in view of Campbell 2, Viswanath, Borup and non-patent literature “Holdover Time (HOT)” by SKYbrary (Screen capture dated February 08, 2023 via The Wayback Machine; hereinafter SKYbrary).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claims 5 and 14. While Campbell 1 further discloses two portions of a de-icing event (Paragraph 0042, “The types of treatment will either be de-icing, anti-icing, or a combination of both”), Campbell 1 does not explicitly disclose: wherein the de-icing event is configured to include a first portion and a second portion that is configured to be completed subsequent to completion of the first portion, wherein the transit deadline is based on a start time of the second portion of the de-icing event.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 further teaches:
wherein the de-icing event is configured to include a first portion and a second portion that is configured to be completed subsequent to completion of the first portion (Paragraph 0044 describes a first portion (“de-icing”) and a second portion (“anti-icing”) of a de-icing treatment wherein the second portion is subsequent to completing the first portion (“…a 2 step process, such as in snow or other freezing precipitation, using type 1 de-icing fluid first then anti-icing Type IV fluid second…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Campbell 2 by including features that allow anti-icing to occur after de-icing. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Campbell 2 both relate to de-icing systems. It would be desirable to incorporate the features taught by Campbell 2 to prepare for environmental conditions such as where precipitation is present (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0044).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly recite: wherein the transit deadline is based on a start time of the second portion of the de-icing event.
Nevertheless, SKYbrary teaches:
wherein the transit deadline is based on a start time of the second portion of the de-icing event (See under description of the attached document, “Holdover time (HOT) begins when the final application of deicing/anti-icing fluid commences and expires when the deicing/anti-icing fluid loses its protection effectiveness…Holdover Time begins at the start of the anti icing operation. If a two-step operation is used, then it begins at the start of the final (anti-icing) step”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of SKYbrary by defining a holdover time as being based on the start time of a second portion of a de-icing event, wherein the second portion corresponds to anti-icing. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature to avoid frozen deposits forming before take-off (SKYbrary, “By definition therefore, holdover time will have effectively run out when frozen deposits start to form or accumulate on treated aircraft surfaces”).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell 1 in view of Campbell 2, Viswanath, Borup and Yang et al. (US20220194576A1, published on June 23, 2022; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 9, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches wherein the location of the aircraft is a first location, wherein the control unit is configured to control [the aircraft] to move the aircraft from the first location to a second location responsive to completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0101, “the CPU 102 may then take over control of the movement of the aircraft from the physical location to its runway so that the aircraft is safely marshalled out of the facility”), Campbell as currently modified does not explicitly teach that the movement involves controlling a propulsion system.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches a method of autonomously controlling aircraft (Abstract) comprising:
[a control unit configured to control] a propulsion system (Paragraphs 0037-0038 describes autonomous taxi operations by a controller (“Executive module 222”) to operate a propulsion system (“…determine a command based on the taxi operation—e.g., one or more actions that when executed actuate components of an autonomous aircraft to thereby perform the taxi operation… executive module 222 can implement autopilot functionality to autonomously control the autonomous aircraft based on received commands, where such autonomous control can involve any suitable actions to execute commands, including but not limited to controlling operation of a propulsion system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang by including features that allow the control unit to control a propulsion system. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Yang both relate to streamlining ground operations, whereas in Yang, the streamlined operations include automating taxiing operations. It would be desirable to incorporate the feature taught by Yang to further assist the pilot during certain ground operations.
Regarding Claim 18, Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches claim 11. Campbell 1 as currently modified teaches wherein the location of the aircraft is a first location, wherein the control unit is configured to control [the aircraft] to move the aircraft from the first location to a second location responsive to completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0089, “At 324, the de-icing module 222 may determine from the progress report or reports whether the contamination removal treatment is complete…If de-icing is complete, at 326, the coordination module 220 may determine the OCP exit location. At 328, the coordination module 220 may transmit information relating to the OCP exit location to the pilot device 230 for display to the pilot”), Campbell 1 as currently modified does not explicitly teach that the movement involves a propulsion system.
Nevertheless, Yang teaches a method of controlling aircraft (Abstract) comprising:
movement via a propulsion system (Paragraphs 0037-0038 describes taxi operations via a propulsion system (“…determine a command based on the taxi operation—e.g., one or more actions that when executed actuate components of an autonomous aircraft to thereby perform the taxi operation… where such autonomous control can involve any suitable actions to execute commands, including but not limited to controlling operation of a propulsion system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to incorporate the teachings of Yang by including features for a using a propulsion system to perform taxi operations. Particularly because Campbell 1 and Yang both relate to streamlining ground operations, whereas in Yang, the streamlined operations include automating taxiing operations. It would be desirable to incorporate the feature taught by Yang to further assist the pilot during certain ground operations.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell 1 in view of Campbell 2, Viswanath, Borup and Tengler.
Regarding Claim 20 (Independent), Campbell 1 discloses a method for coordinating a de-icing process of an aircraft (Abstract, “A method for coordinating contamination removal on a surface of an aircraft”) comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause one or more control units comprising a processor, to perform operations (Paragraph 0138, “Embodiments of the disclosure can be represented as a computer program product stored in a machine-readable medium (also referred to as a computer-readable medium, a processor-readable medium, or a computer usable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein)…”);
displaying, via a display screen of a graphical user interface (GUI) (Paragraph 0054, “The pilot device 230 may include a processor 232, a memory 234, a display 236 and an input 238”; Paragraph 0063 describes a graphical user interface (“To receive the request, the request module 218 may provide instructions to the pilot via the pilot device 230 by displaying a graphical representation of the aircraft to the pilot”));
establishing a bi-directional communication link between a first communication system of the aircraft and a second communication system of a de-icing system [responsive to determining that the de-icing event is required], the first communication system configured to be onboard the aircraft, the second communication system configured to be off-board the aircraft (Figure 2 and Paragraph 0056 describes a communication network connecting a plurality of devices, wherein one of the connected devices is reasonably onboard an aircraft (e.g. “pilot device 230” for use by a pilot) and another device off-board the aircraft in a de-icing system (e.g. “contamination removal personnel device 240” for use by contamination removal personnel) once de-icing is deemed necessary; Paragraph 0056 further recites “The system 208, the pilot device 230, the contamination removal device 240 and the CTM device 250 are preferably connected over a network 260 to send and receive data as required by the system 208”);
receiving one or more command messages indicating a status of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0068 describes the “pilot device” as receiving a progress updates (“completeness information”) from the “contamination removal personnel device” based on the status of the de-icing operation);
receiving a completion notice indicating completion of the de-icing event and changing display of the GUI to display the one or more instructions associated with the completion notice (Paragraphs 0068-0070 describes receiving completeness information (“The de-icing module 222 may also have the pilot device 230 display this completeness information to the pilot”) and a message responsive to completion (“When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”) which reasonably indicate the completion notice being displayed).
However, Campbell 1 does not explicitly recite at least displaying a status of one or more systems of the aircraft, and wherein receiving the one or more commanded messages is configured to automatically trigger the control unit to change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event.
Nevertheless, Campbell 2 teaches automating the de-icing process of an aircraft through a control unit (Abstract; Figure 1 and Paragraph 0036, “The system 100 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 102 that may be seen as a de-icing functionality platform”) comprising:
displaying a status of one or more systems of the aircraft (Paragraph 0127 describes displaying a status (e.g. treatment type/level) of one or more systems (e.g. surface) (“In some embodiments, as the treatment proceeds, the pilot application or module may display updates with respect to the surfaces that are being, or have been treated, fluid types and amount”); Examiner notes that a surface condition is reasonably indicative of a status of a system of the aircraft);
wherein receiving the one or more commanded messages is configured to automatically trigger the control unit to change display of the GUI in real-time to display the status of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0039, “The pilot module 106 may be used for, but not limited to, requesting de-icing/anti-icing, receiving a treatment plan relating to the request for de-icing/anti-icing and for monitoring or displaying updates of the de-icing/anti-icing process as it is being performed such as by receiving updates from the CPU 102 with respect to the de-icing/anti-icing being performed on the aircraft… In other embodiments, the pilot may be provided with a default treatment plan template by the system 102 where the pilot may update the treatment plan template by selecting areas of the aircraft the pilot wishes to receive de-icing/anti-icing treatment or to respond to other questions or to fill in requested information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for displaying de-icing information (Paragraph 0065, “The system 208 can have the pilot device 230 display the request and receive the requested input in various ways, including, but not limited to, displaying graphically as color changes on the image of the aircraft, as a text list of the input, as a table representing the possible input choices, and the like”) to further display the de-icing progress, as taught by Campbell 2, for the benefit of improving pilot awareness of the aircraft’s condition (Campbell 2, Paragraph 0081).
While Campbell 1 further discloses features for adjusting communication frequencies responsive to completion of de-icing event (Paragraph 0070, “When the contamination removal personnel has inputted that the contamination removal procedure is complete, the coordination module 220 may have the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”), Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach at least: displaying location of the aircraft; communicating at a first communication frequency; and changing one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency responsive to receiving the completion notice
Nevertheless, Viswanath teaches features for tuning between various communication frequencies at an airport (Paragraph 0024, “This system is configured to significantly reduce flight crew workload by eliminating manual tuning of communication frequency during each handoff from one ATC entity to another and can help prevent the flight crew from tuning to an incorrect frequency”) comprising:
wherein the control unit is configured to display via the display screen of the GUI a location of the aircraft (Paragraph 0030, “The AMMD displays the aerial vehicle's current location at the center of a moving map that depicts the ground space at the airport”);
wherein the completion notice includes one or more instructions for controlling operation of the aircraft responsive to the completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0101 describes controlling movement of the aircraft to a different location responsive to completion of de-icing operations (“When de-icing operations are complete, the de-icer operator module provides a signal to the CPU 102 or coordinator module indicating completion. This may be via an input to the de-icing operator module from the de-icing vehicle or the de-icing operator which is then transmitted to the coordinator module. Alternatively, either manually or through geo-positioning, once the system is notified that the vehicle has reached a safe parking destination, the CPU 102 may then take over control of the movement of the aircraft from the physical location to its runway so that the aircraft is safely marshalled out of the facility”) which reasonably indicates one or more operating settings have been changed);
communicating at a first communication frequency and changing one or more operating settings of the first communication system to communicate at a different, second communication frequency responsive to receiving the completion notice (Paragraph 0043 describes an aircraft switching from a first communication frequency with an entity and then to a second communication frequency with a different entity (“…a determination is made regarding whether the flight crew would like to tune a COM radio to another frequency from the list (decision 324)…The system instructs the radio interface controller to tune the selected COM radio to the selected frequency (operation 328), the selected COM radio is tuned to the selected frequency automatically (operation 330) without the flight crew having to manually tune a COM radio to a frequency”));
wherein the completion notice includes one or more instructions for controlling operation of the aircraft responsive to the completion of the de-icing event (Paragraph 0101 describes controlling movement of the aircraft to a different location responsive to completion of de-icing operations (“When de-icing operations are complete, the de-icer operator module provides a signal to the CPU 102 or coordinator module indicating completion. This may be via an input to the de-icing operator module from the de-icing vehicle or the de-icing operator which is then transmitted to the coordinator module. Alternatively, either manually or through geo-positioning, once the system is notified that the vehicle has reached a safe parking destination, the CPU 102 may then take over control of the movement of the aircraft from the physical location to its runway so that the aircraft is safely marshalled out of the facility”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for adjusting the communication frequency in response to completing a de-icing event (Paragraph 0070) to include features that allow displaying a location of the aircraft and automatically tuning to a second communication frequency, as taught by Viswanath, for the benefit of expediting communication handover (Viswanath, Paragraph 0024).
However, Campbell 1 as currently modified still does not explicitly teach determining that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of an aircraft.
Nevertheless, Borup teaches an icing control system (see at least Abstract) comprising:
determining that one or more ambient conditions require a de-icing event of an aircraft (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0150, “Whether or not anti-icing or de-icing is performed may be predetermined prior to each flight based on the weather conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for analyzing weather data (Paragraph 0078, “…The system may benefit from input from meteorological systems which relate information such as, but not limited to, temperature, ice and snow conditions”) to determine when de-icing is needed based on weather conditions, as taught by Borup, for the well-known benefit of de-icing a vehicle when icy conditions are present.
Nevertheless, Tengler teaches vehicle-to-vehicle communication wherein the vehicles may be aircraft (Abstract; Paragraph 0015) comprising:
wherein changing one or more operating settings of the first communications system includes opening the bi-directional communication link, wherein the first communication system is prohibited from communicating with the second communication system of the de-icing system responsive to the bi-directional communication link opening (Paragraph 0037, “After the communication has completed, or if the vehicles 12, 13 are no longer within range, the communications link is terminated at 118”; Examiner notes that terminating communication link necessarily indicates prohibiting communication from a first communication system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Campbell 1 invention to expand the features for changing communication frequencies (Paragraph 0070, “the pilot device 230 display a message to the pilot indicating that the pilot should contact the CTM preferable using radio communication at a specific frequency”) to terminate unnecessarily active communication links, as taught by Tengler, for the well-known benefit of preventing an unnecessarily prolonged communication connection.
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669