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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nelson discloses: An interactive guidance system for aircraft-based ground operations, comprising: (Nelson discloses in at least Column 2 Lines 29 – 35 a verbal taxi clearance verification system for analyzing radio communications between air traffic control and aircraft, and generating a taxi route for the aircraft based on the analysis, the taxi route being subsequently displayed to the aircraft crew via a map)
a plurality of aircraft-based sensors, each aircraft-based sensor configured to provide ground position information of an aircraft relative to an airport; (Nelson discloses in at least Column 4 Lines 23 – 32 wherein the system may include one or more sensors, including a GPS system, altimeter, and aircraft state sensors such as wheel position and speed sensors, to detect a taxi situation for the aircraft. At least Column 5 Lines 28 – 37 of Nelson further disclose wherein the data from the sensors detects this situation by determining if the aircraft is on the ground, or in the air and approaching an airport [i.e. ground position information of an aircraft relative to an airport is provided])
a memory configured to store at least one airport database corresponding to the airport; (Nelson discloses in at least Column 3 Lines 18 – 26 wherein a memory of the system may include airport map data, which may include names and locations of runways and taxiways of one or more airports [i.e. at least one airport database corresponding to the airport stored in memory])
at least one processor coupled to the memory and to the plurality of aircraft- based sensors, the at least one processor configured to: (Nelson discloses in at least Column 3 Lines 18 – 21 & 30 – 35 wherein a processor may be communicatively coupled to system memory, in order implement the verbal taxi clearance verification system. Further, at least Column 4 Lines 29 – 32 & Column 5 Lines 28 – 31 of Nelson disclose wherein the processor may receive data from the one or more sensors to determine the state of the aircraft [i.e. the at least one processor is coupled to the plurality of aircraft- based sensors])
receive aural instructions from a control facility of the airport; (Nelson discloses in at least Column 5 Lines 50 – 61 wherein the processor may begin storing audio communication data received from air traffic control via a communication system [i.e. aural data from an airport control facility] and processes said data with speech recognition processing to determine if an identification of the aircraft is mentioned. At least Column 6 Line 51 – Column 7 Line 4 of Nelson further discloses wherein the received data [associated with the aircraft identification as disclosed in at least Column 6 Lines 5 – 50] is processed to determine instructions corresponding to the audio data, such as direction instructions, hold instructions, and the like [i.e. the aural data is aural instructions])
determine at least one navigation path based on analyzing the aural instructions, the navigation path including a current position of the aircraft, a destination of the aircraft, and at least one of a runway or a taxiway; and (Nelson discloses in at least Column 6 Line 51 – Column 7 Line 4 wherein the processor processes audio data [i.e. aural instructions] received using an acoustic model and speech recognition processes in order to determine the taxi route [i.e. navigation path] transmitted by air traffic control. One such example is specifically disclosed in at least Column 6 Line 61 – Column 7 Line 2 of Nelson to include wherein the route is transmitted as a sequence of phonetic alphabet characters and numbers corresponding to taxiway and runway identifications [i.e. at least one runway or taxiway] the aircraft should travel from and arrive at [i.e. a current position and destination], as well as hold short instructions instructing an aircraft to wait at a specified location)
at least one interactive display unit coupled to the at least one processor, the at least one interactive display unit configured to: (Nelson discloses in at least Column 4 Lines 3 – 22 wherein the system may include one or more displays, dedicated to or shared by the taxi clearance verifications system, as well as input systems such as a touchscreen, which may be connected to and controlled by a processor as disclosed in at least Column 7 Lines 4 – 5 [i.e. at least one interactive display unit coupled to the at least one processor])
generate at least one strategic display by fusing the ground position information and the navigation path with airport information based on the at least one airport database; (Nelson discloses in at least Column 7 Lines 2 – 5 wherein the route to be displayed may be determined by determining where the instructions [i.e. navigation path, including current position as set forth above] intersect on a map of the airport [i.e. airport information based on the at least one airport database]. At least Column 9 Lines 1 – 14 of Nelson further disclose wherein the route generated may be overlaid over a map of the airport to enhance pilot awareness of the route [i.e. the navigation path and airport information are fused])
present the at least one strategic display to at least one operator of the aircraft via an interactive display surface; and (Nelson discloses in at least Column 7 Lines 4 – 8 wherein upon the determination of a route, the processor may display [i.e. present] a plot of the route on the display, either before or after the taxi route has been confirmed by the aircraft crew member. At least Column 9 Lines 1 – 14 further discloses wherein the route generated may be overlaid over a map of the airport to enhance pilot awareness of the route [i.e. the display is the at least one strategic display]. At least Column 4 Lines 3 – 22 and Column 7 Lines 4 – 5 of Nelson disclose wherein the system may include one or more displays and touchscreens for presenting data as set forth above [i.e. the display is an interactive display surface])
PNG
media_image1.png
738
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive control input from an operator of the aircraft; and wherein, based on the received control input: the at least one processor is configured to modify the navigation path; and (Nelson discloses in at least Column 4 Lines 3 – 12 a plurality of input systems, including a touchscreen and microphone. At least Column 8 Lines 55 – 63 of Nelson further discloses wherein the input systems may be utilized by a member of the aircraft crew, said inputs being monitored by the processor, to correct or accept displayed taxi routes [i.e. an aircraft operator provides control inputs to correct/modify the navigation path based on the received control input]. This step is further disclosed in at least Element 265 of Figure 2, above)
the at least one interactive display unit is configured to modify the at least one strategic display. (Nelson discloses in at least Column 7 Lines 4 – 8 wherein upon the correction of a route, the processor may display a plot of the route on the display, as further disclosed in Element 260 of Figure 2, above. At least Column 9 Lines 1 – 14 further disclose wherein the corrected route may be overlaid over a map of the airport to enhance pilot awareness of the route [i.e. the display is the at least one strategic display]. At least Column 4 Lines 3 – 22 and Column 7 Lines 4 – 5 of Nelson disclose wherein the system may include one or more displays and touchscreens for presenting data as set forth above [i.e. the display is an interactive display surface]. At least Column 9 Lines 16 – 18 of Nelson further disclose wherein the steps of the method then repeat, continuing to monitor for changes to the taxi route [i.e. any further modifications])
Nelson however appears to be silent regarding:
wherein the modified navigation path includes at least one modified portion based on the received control input;
upon receipt of the received control input, forward an approval request of the at least one modified portion of the modified navigation path to the control facility;
However Shapiro teaches wherein a flight path or plan may be modified through user input to a flight control panel, with an approval request for the modified flight plan being forwarded from the aircraft flight management system to an air traffic control system.
wherein the modified navigation path includes at least one modified portion based on the received control input; (However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 20 Line 51 – Column 21 Line 10 wherein a user may provide input to a touchscreen display to modify an active flight path, for example to avoid an obstacle along the path. At least Column 21 Lines 38 – 56 of Shapiro further teaches wherein the modification to the flight path may include adjustments to the shape or curvature of the flight plan [i.e. the modified navigation path includes at least one modified portion], with the flight management system determining and outputting an acceptable flight path dynamically based on user inputs [i.e. the modification to the flight path is based on the received control input], such as a dragging of a vertical flight path selector as taught in at least Column 22 Lines 2 – 29 of Shapiro. At least Column 22 Lines 30 – 52 of Shapiro further teaches wherein a user may perform a gesture to execute an updated modified flight plan, upon receipt of which the modified flight plan is sent to a flight management system or auto-flight system for execution)
upon receipt of the received control input, forward an approval request of the at least one modified portion of the modified navigation path to the control facility; (However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 22 Lines 30 – 52 wherein if the user determines to change the flight path, the user may perform a gesture to execute the modified flight plan, upon receipt of which the modified flight plan is sent to a flight management system or auto-flight system for execution. At least Column 23 Lines 7 – 15 of Shapiro further teaches wherein the processor of the flight management system or auto-flight system may wait to finalize execution of the modified flight plan until the processor receives approval of the modified flight path from an off-board system, such as from an air traffic control communication station [i.e. a control facility]. At least Column 23 Lines 16 – 39 of Shapiro teaches wherein the flight management system or auto-flight system may be configured to route a request for approval to an air traffic controller, who may then approve or deny the request, the result of which is then notified to the flight management or auto-flight system [i.e. an approval request of the at least one modified portion of the modified navigation path is forwarded to the control facility, upon the control input of the user indicating to execute the modified flight path])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating the forwarding of an approval request to a control facility based on control input modifying a path as taught by Shapiro.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shapiro in at least Column 23 Lines 7 – 39, and Column 15 Line 51 – Column 16 Line 2, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the safety of the aircraft may be improved by waiting to execute flight plans until after an air traffic controller approves of the modification, ensuring safety rules are followed in the planning and modification of the aircraft path through said approval.
Claim(s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burke (US 2016/0180715 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 1, wherein: the navigation path is an approved navigation path; wherein the at least one strategic display presents the approved navigation path in an approved color; and wherein the at least one strategic display presents the at least one modified portion in a non-approved color.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an approved and non-approved paths are presented on the display as different colors.
However Burke teaches in at least Paragraphs 0080 & 0082 wherein active route information [i.e. approved navigation path] for an aircraft may be displayed as a first color and line type, and TAP generated route information [i.e. modified portion] may be displayed with a second color and line type. A TAP generated route is a route determined by a traffic aware planning module, which is capable of calculating revised aircraft trajectories based on user input, which may request approval to change the active flight trajectory to the revised route as taught in Paragraphs 0012 & 0013.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the different coloration of approved and revised aircraft trajectories as taught by Burke.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Burke in at least Paragraphs 0013, 0080, & 0082, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, presenting active and generated route information in a visually distinct manner, the revised and active flight trajectories may be visually distinguished from one another, improving the display of information to the aircraft pilot.
Examiner asserts that the combination of the teachings of Burke and Shapiro renders obvious the present claimed invention. Burke teaches, as set forth above, wherein an ‘active’ route may be displayed in a different color from a ‘proposed’ route, and further teaches wherein the system may request approval to change the active flight trajectory to the revised route, however appears to be silent regarding wherein approval is received for the modified portion, and the approved modified portion color is changed. Shapiro teaches wherein a flight plan may be presented on a user display, with approval being requested to modify the flight plan from an air traffic controller, and the subsequent approval [or denial] being transmitted back to the aircraft from the air traffic controller. Thus, as Shapiro teaches wherein upon approval of a mission plan modification, the active mission plan is executed at the aircraft, and Burke teaches wherein an active mission plan is indicated on a GUI via a different color than a proposed mission plan, Examiner asserts that upon an approval altering the active mission plan as taught by Shapiro, the color of the ‘proposed’ route would be altered to the ‘active/approved’ route color taught by Burke.
Regarding Claim 3:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 1, wherein the at least on processor is configured to receive approval of the at least one modified portion from the control facility, and wherein the at least one strategic display presents at least one approved modified portion with a visual indication of the received approval.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein approval of the at least one modified portion of the route is received from the control facility, nor wherein the modified route is visually distinguished when approved.
However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 23 Lines 16 – 48 wherein a request for approval to execute a modified flight path may be routed from an aircraft flight management system to an air traffic control station, at which an air traffic controller may approve or deny the request [or further modify the modified flight plan]. A notification of approval or denial is subsequently sent, forwarded, or otherwise routed to the flight management system of the aircraft [i.e. approval is received from the control facility for the at least one modified portion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating the receipt of approval for a path modification from a control facility.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shapiro in at least Column 23 Lines 7 – 39, and Column 15 Line 51 – Column 16 Line 2, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the safety of the aircraft may be improved by waiting to execute flight plans until after an air traffic controller approves of the modification, ensuring safety rules are followed in the planning and modification of the aircraft path through said approval.
However Burke teaches in at least Paragraphs 0080 & 0082 wherein active route information [i.e. approved navigation path] for an aircraft may be displayed as a first color and line type, and TAP generated route information [i.e. modified portion] may be displayed with a second color and line type. A TAP generated route is a route determined by a traffic aware planning module, which is capable of calculating revised aircraft trajectories based on user input, which may request approval to change the active flight trajectory to the revised route as taught in Paragraphs 0012 & 0013.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the different coloration of approved and revised aircraft trajectories as taught by Burke.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Burke in at least Paragraphs 0013, 0080, & 0082, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, presenting active and generated route information in a visually distinct manner, the revised and active flight trajectories may be visually distinguished from one another, improving the display of information to the aircraft pilot.
Regarding Claim 4:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 3, wherein: wherein, the visual indication of the received approval is an approved color, wherein the at least one strategic display presents the at least one approved modified portion in the approved color.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an approved modified path portion is displayed in the approved color.
However Burke teaches in at least Paragraphs 0080 & 0082 wherein active route information [i.e. approved navigation path] for an aircraft may be displayed as a first color and line type, TAP generated route information [i.e. modified portion] may be displayed with a second color and line type, and the system may request approval to change the active flight trajectory to the revised route as taught in Paragraphs 0012 & 0013. Thus, when the modified route is approved, it becomes active and switches to the ‘approved’ color.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feyereisen (US 2011/0196599 A1).
Regarding Claim 5:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 1, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to modify the navigation path by adding at least one of a stop or a hold; and wherein the at least one strategic display includes the stop or hold.
While Nelson discloses in at least Column 6 Line 66 – Column 7 Line 2 wherein aircraft taxi instructions may include hold short instructions [i.e. a stop or hold], Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein such a hold instruction is part of a navigation path modification.
However Feyereisen teaches in at least Paragraphs 0037 & 0039 wherein a user may input instructions for an aircraft taxi path, including a hold instruction, which may be visually displayed along the selected taxi path [i.e. a user inputs a stop or hold, which is displayed by the strategic display].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the user input of a hold instruction which is subsequently displayed along with the aircraft taxi route as taught by Feyereisen.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Feyereisen in at least Paragraphs 0002 & 0040, the safety and orderliness of aircraft operation may be improved by causing the aircraft to hold and wait at specified points during the taxi operation.
Claim(s) 6, 7, & 9 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veronesi (US 2019/0027051 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 1, wherein: the plurality of aircraft-based sensors includes at least one external sensor configured to provide component position information corresponding to an external component of the aircraft; wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate a tactical display by fusing the component position information provided by the at least one external sensor and the navigation path with the airport information; wherein the tactical display includes a projection of at least one of a future location of the external component or a future movement of the external component; and wherein the at least one interactive display unit is configured to present the tactical display to the operator via the display surface.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein sensor, path, and map data are used to project the future movement of an external component of the aircraft.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraph 0016 wherein the location and orientation of a taxiing aircraft is collected from an aircraft avionics system, including GPS data, which may be utilized to position a model of taxiing aircraft in an environment, including the positions of extremity structures of the aircraft in the environment, as taught in at least Paragraphs 0012 & 0018 [i.e. component position information corresponding to an external component of the aircraft obtained via a sensor]. At least Paragraph 0015 of Veronesi teaches wherein trajectories of the wingtips are projected based on avionics data, including the orientation of the plane at the current time [i.e. based on navigation path data]. Further, at least Paragraphs 0016 – 0018 of Veronesi teaches wherein objects located in the environment of the aircraft may be identified based on a fixed-object database corresponding to the specific airport in question [i.e. based on airport information] with an image of the environment being rendered based on the aforementioned information [i.e. a tactical display is generated by fusing the information]. At least Paragraphs 0020 – 0022 of Veronesi teaches wherein trajectory lines indicative of a predicted trajectory of the wingtips are presented on a display interface, as depicted in at least Figures 3A and 3B, below, alongside objects in the environment [i.e. a projection of a future movement of the external component].
PNG
media_image2.png
416
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the presentation of a tactical display, including the predicted trajectory of wingtips of an aircraft with respect to environmental objects as taught by Veronesi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Veronesi in at least Paragraphs 0002 & 0020, objects for which there is a risk of collision may be displayed to the pilot of the aircraft along with a projected course of components of the aircraft a pilot may not be immediately visually aware of, improving the safety of the aircraft during taxiing operations through heightened awareness of potentially dangerous objects.
Regarding Claim 7:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the external component includes at least one of: a wing or a wingtip of the aircraft; or landing gear of the aircraft.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the external component includes at least one of: a wing or a wingtip of the aircraft; or landing gear of the aircraft.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0012 & 0013 wherein extremity structures, whose projected trajectories are ascertained as taught in at least Paragraph 0015, include wings of the aircraft and associated wingtips, as well as stabilizers, aircraft nose, and engine nacelles.
Regarding Claim 9:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the tactical display includes at least one of: an obstacle within at least one of the navigation path or the projection of the external component; or impassable terrain within at least one of the navigation path or the projection of the external component.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the display includes an indication of an obstacle or impassible terrain.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraph 0024 wherein the airport environment may be displayed, including collidable objects in the environment [i.e. an obstacle] and projected trajectories of wing tips [i.e. the projection of the external component]. At least Paragraph 0020 of Veronesi further teaches wherein collidable objects that are located between trajectory lines of the aircraft wingtips are distinguished from collidable objects that are located outside of said trajectory lines, including through the display of objects in different colors as depicted in at least Figures 3A and 3B, above [i.e. the tactical display includes an obstacle within the projection of the external component].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the display indication of objects in the path of the aircraft, including wingtips, as taught by Veronesi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Veronesi in at least Paragraph 0020, objects for which there is a risk of collision may be displayed to the pilot of the aircraft, improving the safety of the aircraft during taxiing operations through heightened awareness of potentially dangerous objects.
Regarding Claim 10:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 9, wherein: the tactical display presents the projection of the external component in a first color; and wherein the tactical display presents the obstacle or the impassable terrain in a second color.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the display includes an indication of an obstacle or impassible terrain presented in a different color than the projection of the external component.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0015 & 0020 wherein trajectory lines may be projected and displayed for each of the aircraft wingtips [i.e. the projection of the external component] as well as collidable objects that reside between or outside the trajectory lines. At least Paragraph 0020 of Veronesi further teaches wherein the collidable objects may be distinguished by color, such that collidable objects between the trajectory lines are shown in a different color than those that reside outside the projected trajectory lines. Thus, as the trajectory lines may be presented in one color, and collidable objects may be presented in a plurality of colors, the projection of the external component is presented in a first color and the obstacle or the impassable terrain is presented in a second color.
Regarding Claim 11:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 9, wherein the interactive display unit is configured to announce at least one aural warning to the operator based on the obstacle or the impassable terrain.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein aural warnings are presented to the operator based on the obstacle or the impassable terrain.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraph 0034 wherein a user output device may include a sound system, configured to output audible [i.e. aural] warnings in response to the detection of objects in the path of the taxiing aircraft [i.e. based on the obstacle or impassible terrain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the implementation of audible warnings based on the obstacle data as taught by Veronesi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Veronesi in at least Paragraphs 0002, 0033, & 0034, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, providing warnings to the operator of the aircraft may enable the aircraft pilot to avoid collisions with obstacles, improving the safety of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 12:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the tactical display includes symbology based on the airport information.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a tactical display includes symbology based on the airport information.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraphs 0018 & 0044 wherein data regarding objects in the environment [i.e. airport information] may be mapped as image data symbols [i.e. symbology] in a map of the aircraft environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the mapping of objects in the environment as symbols as taught by Veronesi.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Veronesi in at least Paragraph 0011, representing objects in the environment with which collisions may occur may assist the pilot of the aircraft in a taxiing operation, improving the control of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 13:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the tactical display includes at least one of: a partial overhead view of the aircraft; or a fully overhead view of the aircraft.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a tactical display includes a partial overhead view of the aircraft or a fully overhead view of the aircraft.
However Veronesi teaches in at least Paragraph 0020, and depicts in Figures 3A & 3B, below, wherein a display presented to a pilot depicting the aircraft and objects in the environment may be an overhead view of the aircraft.
PNG
media_image3.png
420
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one interactive display unit is configured to toggle between the strategic display and the tactical display based on the received control input.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the at least one interactive display unit is configured to toggle between the strategic display and the tactical display based on the received control input.
However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 14 Lines 22 – 41 wherein a display of an aircraft may include both tactical and strategic navigation functions displayed concurrently on the same display, with strategic and navigational functions being contextually filtered in presentation to the user based on user input [i.e. the control input from the user filters/toggles the display of the strategic and tactical display]. At least Column 13 Line 64 – Column 14 Line 13 of Shapiro teach wherein strategic navigation functions include rendering a flight map, including topological features and obstacles, and the tactical navigation functions include modifying a flight plan [i.e. the tactical and strategic displays are inverted in their naming conventions from the naming conventions of the present claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating the toggling of strategic and tactical functions based on the user input as taught by Shapiro.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shapiro in at least Column 14 Lines 31 – 48, only contextually relevant functions may be presented to a user on the interface, improving the user’s ease of executing particular tactical or strategic navigational tasks.
Regarding Claim 15:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one interactive display unit is configured for simultaneous display of the strategic display and the tactical display.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the strategic and tactical display are simultaneously displayed.
However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 14 Lines 22 – 41 wherein a display of an aircraft may include both tactical and strategic navigation functions displayed concurrently on the same display [i.e. the strategic display and the tactical display are displayed simultaneously]. At least Column 13 Line 64 – Column 14 Line 13 of Shapiro teach wherein strategic navigation functions include rendering a flight map, including topological features and obstacles, and the tactical navigation functions include modifying a flight plan [i.e. the tactical and strategic displays are inverted in their naming conventions from the naming conventions of the present claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating the simultaneous display of tactical and strategic information for the aircraft as taught by Shapiro.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shapiro in at least Column 14 Lines 41 – 48, the user may more easily execute both strategic and tactical control functions through a single interface, improving the user control of the aircraft and the user awareness of the situation when making strategic and tactical decisions.
Regarding Claim 16:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein the at least one interactive display unit comprises: a first interactive display unit configured for presentation of the strategic display; and a second interactive display unit configured for presentation of the tactical display.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a strategic and tactical display are presented on separate displays.
However Shapiro teaches in at least Column 14 Lines 13 – 21 wherein a strategic and tactical navigation functions are presented on separate touchscreen displays. At least Column 13 Line 64 – Column 14 Line 13 of Shapiro teach wherein strategic navigation functions include rendering a flight map, including topological features and obstacles, and the tactical navigation functions include modifying a flight plan [i.e. the tactical and strategic displays are inverted in their naming conventions from the naming conventions of the present claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating tactical and strategic display on separate screens as taught by Shapiro.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Shapiro in at least Column 10 Lines 51 – 62, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the inclusion of a plurality of displays may allow the flight modes and controls to be displayed on as many displays as required, improving the amount of information presentable to the control system operator.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1) and Veronesi (US 2019/0027051 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Papitone (US 2007/0241935 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 6, wherein: the at least one external component includes a first external component and a second external component; wherein the tactical display presents the projection of the first external component in a first color; and wherein the tactical display presents the projection of the second external component in a second color.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein first and second external components are presented in different colors.
However Papitone teaches in at least Paragraphs 0042 & 0044 wherein symbology for different elements of an aircraft may be distinguished by different coloration, patterns, or color schemes. This may include coloring landing gear symbology in a darker color than a semitransparent aircraft symbol, which includes other components such as the aircraft wings, in order to contrast the landing gear symbology from the other aircraft symbology, such that the landing gear and turn guidance symbology may be more readily seen compared to the wings of the aircraft [i.e. first external component as set forth above]. At least Paragraphs 0048 & 0064 of Papitone further teach wherein a turn radius trend [i.e. projection] for the aircraft nose gear wheel [i.e. a second external component] may be displayed on the display element, as depicted in Figure 10 of Papitone, below.
PNG
media_image4.png
516
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Nelson by incorporating the different coloration of aircraft components as taught by Papitone.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Papitone in at least Paragraphs 0042 & 0044, different coloration of different portions of an aircraft may improve contrast, such that different aircraft components may be more readily distinguished. While Examiner notes that the coloration of Papitone applies primarily to the components on the aircraft itself on the display, including the landing gear, rather than the specific projections of movements of said components, similar motivations to contrast the projections of different parts of the aircraft apply to the projections, such as wings and the like as further taught by Veronesi, to increase visibility of said projections.
Claim(s) 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson (EP 3639105 B1).
Regarding Claim 17:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 1, wherein: the received control input includes a desired parking position and a desired parking orientation of the aircraft.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a control input includes a desired parking position and a desired parking orientation of the aircraft.
However Johnson teaches in at least Paragraph 0104 wherein a target docking operation may be performed by a docking assist system of a vehicle [which may include an aircraft as taught in at least Paragraph 0013] based on a target docking [i.e. parking] position and orientation [i.e. a desired parking position and a desired parking orientation of the aircraft]. At least Paragraph 0102, the target docking position and orientation may be input by a user through a touchscreen display [i.e. the target docking position and orientation may be a received control input].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the user input of a target docking position and orientation as taught by Johnson.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson in at least Paragraph 0102, it may be nonobvious how a user wishes to dock the vehicle with respect to a structure, and thus the user definition of a target docking position and orientation improves the user control over the specific docking position of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 18:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 17, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to generate a parking path from a current position and orientation of the aircraft to the desired parking position and orientation of the aircraft; and wherein the at least one interactive display unit is configured to present the parking path to the operator via at least one of the strategic display or a tactical display.
Nelson discloses in at least Column 7 Lines 4 – 8 wherein a plot of the determined taxi route [i.e. parking path] may be displayed on an aircraft display [i.e. via the interactive display unit strategic display]. Nelson however appears to be silent regarding wherein a parking path is generated from a current position and orientation of the aircraft to the desired parking position and orientation of the aircraft.
However Johnson teaches in at least Paragraphs 0140 – 0142 wherein a target docking track [i.e. a parking path] may be generated based on a target docking position/orientation, and current positioning/orientation information of the vehicle to perform the docking maneuver [i.e. from a current position and orientation of the aircraft to the desired parking position and orientation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the determination of a target docking track based on the current and target position/orientation of the vehicle as taught by Johnson.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson in at least Paragraph 0113, accurate control maneuvers to bring the vehicle from a current position to a desired target position and orientation may be ascertained, improving the maneuvering of the aircraft to a specific goal.
Regarding Claim 19:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 18, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to forward the parking path to an automatic parking system of the aircraft.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the determined parking path is forwarded to an aircraft automated parking system.
However Johnson teaches in at least Paragraphs 0112 & 0126 wherein a target docking track, position, and orientation are converted to target linear and angular velocities, and forwarded as an output of the target maneuver block to a vehicle controller, which may be an automated docking system as taught in at least Paragraphs 0014, 0198, & 0199.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the forwarding of a target docking track to an automated docking system as taught by Johnson.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Johnson in at least Paragraph 0193, the safety of a docking [parking] operation may be improved by performing the maneuver fully autonomously.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 9,430,949 B1) in view of Shapiro (US 9,616,993 B1)and Johnson (EP 3639105 B1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Depape (US 2017/0004715 A1).
Regarding Claim 20:
The interactive guidance system of Claim 17, wherein: the at least one processor fails to generate a parking path from the current position and orientation to the desired parking position and orientation of the aircraft; and wherein the interactive display unit is configured to present an error message associated with a failure to generate a parking path to the operator via the display surface.
Nelson does not appear to specifically disclose wherein an error message is presented if a parking path from the current position and orientation to the desired parking position and orientation of the aircraft fails to be generated.
However Johnson teaches in at least Paragraphs 0140 – 0142 wherein a target docking track [i.e. a parking path] may be generated based on a target docking position/orientation, and current positioning/orientation information of the vehicle to perform the docking maneuver [i.e. from a current position and orientation of the aircraft to the desired parking position and orientation].
However Depape teaches in at least Paragraphs 0076 & 0077 wherein based on user input, a taxi route [i.e. a parking path] may be determined for an aircraft. If no acceptable solution is found due to a number of factors, including it being impossible to do so [i.e. wherein the at least one processor fails to generate a parking path from the current position and orientation to the desired parking position and orientation of the aircraft], the system is configured to generate a warning signal or message to the flight crew for corrective action [i.e. an error message associated with a failure to generate a parking path].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nelson and Shapiro by incorporating the presentation of an error message when no taxi route for the aircraft can be generated as taught by Depape.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Depape in at least Paragraph 0077, a flight crew may issue corrective action based on the failure to generate the route, improving the aircraft control system during taxi operations. During planning and execution, approval may be sought from other sources for the modified mission route, including a human operator seeing approval from air traffic control.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Rajesh (US 2022/0036750 A1): Rajesh recites a system for tracking aircraft near a ramp area, as well as parking the aircraft near said ramp area. A user may input a ramp target, which may be referenced to a database to determine a location and orientation of the ramp area in question, with which an indication may be displayed to aid in the parking of the vehicle.
Neis (US 2022/0130263 A1): Neis recites a method for managing an autonomous aerial vehicle, including storing a mission plan, which may be modified by a user. Upon modification
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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights