DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed March 14, 2024. Claims 21-40 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2023, 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 filed December 3, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended limitation of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) other than an air traffic control of the airport merely serves further specify the additional limitation of the ASMGCS and therefore causes the entire limitation to merely recite a field of use for the invention. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 21-40 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.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exemption without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 21-40 are directed to a system and method for monitoring the ground motions of aircraft at an airport and generating ground navigation routes for those aircraft. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 28 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below:
A method for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from components of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) of an airport other than an air traffic control of the airport, information associated with current aircraft ground movements at the airport;
inputting the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into a hidden Markov model of the computing device, wherein the hidden Markov model includes a set of states, wherein each respective state of the set of states corresponds to a different aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
determining, using the hidden Markov model, levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states;
determining, by the computing device, a possible adjustment to a current aircraft ground movement route at the airport based, at least in part, on the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport, wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold;
displaying, by the computing device, the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
receiving, by the computing device, an acceptance of the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport; and
adjusting, by the computing device upon receiving the acceptance, the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport according to the possible adjustment.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a user working for the Air Traffic Control (ATC) of an airport is able to receive information about the ground movements of aircraft at an airport and the current status of the taxiways and runways at the airport on their console. The ATC may then make decisions and/or perform calculations, either mentally or with pen and paper, to determine the optimal route for aircraft to take to reach their particular destination efficiently (i.e. looking at the active map of the airport and finding the lease congested taxiways from a gate to an active runway and formulating a ground taxi route using said taxiways). Additionally, the ATC is able to send the newly formulated plan to an aircraft and await an acceptance response from the pilot of the aircraft (either digitally or audibly) and can then update the route of the aircraft in the system to the updated route. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation additionally and/or alternatively represent mathematical relationships, (i.e. configuring models and performing calculations) and are therefore mathematical concepts. The mere recitation of a generic computer or computing element does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
A method for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device from components of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) of an airport other than an air traffic control of the airport, information associated with current aircraft ground movements at the airport;
inputting the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into a hidden Markov model of the computing device, wherein the hidden Markov model includes a set of states, wherein each respective state of the set of states corresponds to a different aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
determining, using the hidden Markov model, levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states;
determining, by the computing device, a possible adjustment to a current aircraft ground movement route at the airport based, at least in part, on the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport, wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold;
displaying, by the computing device, the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
receiving, by the computing device, an acceptance of the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport; and
adjusting, by the computing device upon receiving the acceptance, the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport according to the possible adjustment.
The functions of the computing device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The characterization of the computing device as components of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) other than an air traffic control of the airport amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of the computing device amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the characterization of the advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The limitations of claims 21 and 35 comparable to the limitations of claim 28 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements.
Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to claim 28, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-23, 28-35, and 38-40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et al. (US 9396663; hereinafter Zimmer, of record in IDS), in view of Law et al. (US 20110282565; hereinafter Law, already of record), further in view of Ketabdar et al. (US 20110047112; hereinafter Ketabdar, of record in IDS), and further in view of Guettier et al. (US 20170046963; hereinafter Guettier).
Regarding Claim 21,
Zimmer teaches
A computing device for routing aircraft ground movements at an airport, (Zimmer: Column 3, Line 14-21; Device 104) comprising:
a memory; (Zimmer: Column 3, Line 14-21; Memory 180)
a processor (Zimmer: Column 3, Line 14-21; Processor 170) configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to:
...
determine a possible adjustment to a current aircraft ground movement route at the airport based, at least in part, on the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport,... (Zimmer: Column 4, Line 28-40)
display the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport; (Zimmer: Column 4, Line 62 – Column 5, Line 2) and
receive an acceptance of the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport. (Zimmer: Column 4, Line 55-62)
Zimmer does not teach
...
receive, from components of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) of an airport, information associated with current aircraft ground movements at the airport;
...
input the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into a hidden Markov model, wherein the hidden Markov model includes a set of states, wherein each respective state of the set of states corresponds to a different aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
determine, using the hidden Markov model, levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states; and
...wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Law teaches
...
receive, from components of an advanced surface movement guidance and control system (ASMGCS) of an airport, information associated with current aircraft ground movements at the airport; (Law: Paragraph [0080]; “FIG. 1 illustrates the integration of the Advisor as a hardware/software component of a generic automated surface traffic control system. Such automated systems include the Tower Fight Data Manager (TFDM), Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control Systems (A-SMGCS)...”; [0082]; “The Advisor processes vehicle state inputs provided by airport surveillance systems, route assignment inputs provided by automated airport surface traffic control systems or other DSTs, airport infrastructure inputs maintained by the automated system defining the airport surface traffic network and parameters for analyzing potential traffic conflicts, and generates hold advisories to surface air traffic controllers and/or ramp controllers 12, as shown in FIG. 1.”)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft routing system of Zimmer with the ASMGCS of Law for the benefit of preventing conflicts without requiring network path direction-of-movement rules and without requiring rerouting, rescheduling or other network optimization solutions. (Law: Abstract)
Zimmer, in view of Law, does not teach
...
input the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into a hidden Markov model, wherein the hidden Markov model includes a set of states, wherein each respective state of the set of states corresponds to a different aircraft ground movement route at the airport;
determine, using the hidden Markov model, levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states; and
...wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Ketabdar teaches
...
input the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into a hidden Markov model, wherein the hidden Markov model includes a set of states, (Ketabdar: Paragraph [0017]; “The step of classifying airplane flight events preferably comprises comparing said acceleration pattern with statistical reference models for events during a flight. ... Alternatively, the step of classifying airplane flight events comprises comparing said acceleration pattern with a Hidden Markov model, wherein each state of the model models an event class.” and [0035]) wherein each respective state of the set of states corresponds to a different aircraft ground movement route at the airport; (Ketabdar: Paragraph [0023])
determine, using the hidden Markov model, levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states; (Ketabdar: Paragraph [0024]) and
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft routing system of Zimmer, in view of Law, with the Markov model of Ketabdar for the benefit of capturing information existing over time or sequence of events. (Ketabdar: Paragraph [0035])
Zimmer, in view of Law, and further in view of Ketabdar, does not teach
...
...wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold;
...
However in the same field of endeavor, Guettier teaches
...
...wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route includes a switch to one of the different aircraft ground movement routes in the set of states if the level of belief in the state of the set of states corresponding to that respective aircraft ground movement route meets or exceeds a particular probability threshold; (Guettier: Paragraph [0006]-[0007], [0041], [0047]-[0051])
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft routing system of Zimmer, in view of Law, and further in view of Ketabdar, with the probability threshold comparison of Guettier for the benefit of limiting the impact of a guiding error. (Guettier: Paragraph [0005])
Regarding Claim 22,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the particular threshold corresponds to a particular probability that respective aircraft ground movement route will be quicker than the current aircraft ground movement route. (Zimmer: Column 6, Line 28-41; “For example, the user 152 (e.g., the traffic controller) may provide the user input 120 to modify the taxiing route assignment 146 such that way points corresponding to a less busy portion of the airport are included.” Less busy means faster)
Regarding Claim 23,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the particular threshold corresponds to a particular probability that respective aircraft ground movement route will be safe. (Zimmer: Column 6, Line 28-41; “As another example, the user 152 (e.g., the traffic controller) may be aware of a particular situation (e.g., a passenger with a medical emergency, an overheated engine, a security situation, etc.) that is not included in the conditions 148, that is not addressed by the routing rules 144, or both. In this example, the user 152 may provide the user input 120 to modify the taxiing route assignment 146 such that the vehicle 102 is directed to a particular location (e.g., a waypoint or a gate) where ground personnel (e.g., doctors) are available to address the particular situation (e.g., the medical emergency).”)
Regarding Claim 28, the claim is analogous to Claim 21 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...
adjusting, by the computing device upon receiving the acceptance, the current aircraft ground movement route according to the possible adjustment. (Zimmer: Column 10, Line 47-57)
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 29,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 28, wherein inputting the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport into the hidden Markov model triggers a change in the levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states. (Ketabdar: Paragraph [0024]; A score is generated during the test of the system using actual samples (i.e. changing the levels of belief by generating a score for the aircraft where there was none prior).)
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, and Ketabdar, is the same as stated for Claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 30,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 28, wherein the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport is a current route of an aircraft from a gate of the airport to a runway of the airport. (Zimmer: Column 8, Line 63 – Column 9, Line 6)
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, and Ketabdar, is the same as stated for Claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 31,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 28, wherein the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport is a current route of an aircraft from a runway of the airport to a gate of the airport. (Zimmer: Column 10, Line 24-29)
Regarding Claim 32,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 28, wherein the method includes:
determining, by the computing device, a change in a state of the current aircraft ground movements at the airport has occurred based, at least in part, on the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport; (Zimmer: Column 6, Line 4-15) and
determining, by the computing device, the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport upon determining the change in the state of the current aircraft ground movements at the airport has occurred. (Zimmer: Column 9, Line 55 – Column 10, Line 1)
Regarding Claim 33,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 28, wherein the method includes displaying the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport on a map of the airport. (Zimmer: Column 5, Line 25-27, FIG. 2)
Regarding Claim 34,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The method of claim 33, wherein the possible adjustment to the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport is highlighted on the map of the airport. (Zimmer: Column 8, Line 6-11)
Regarding Claim 35, the claim is analogous to Claim 21 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 38,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The system of claim 35, wherein the computing device is configured to, upon receiving the acceptance of the possible adjustment:
adjust the current aircraft ground movement route at the airport according to the possible adjustment; (Zimmer: Column 12, Line 47-51) and
update the ASMGCS to reflect the adjustment of the current aircraft ground movement route. (Law: Paragraph [0112]; “In some embodiments, the Advisor is automatically invoked periodically according to a user-defined update interval (e.g., once per second) or on-demand (e.g., at each vertex crossing event). Upon invocation, the Advisor examines all of the vehicles known or planned to be active on the surface graph at the current instant. The Advisor examines planned/assigned paths given the vehicle current positions on the surface graph, and conducts a pair-wise comparison of the path of each vehicle with that of the other vehicles to detect critical sections.”)
Regarding Claim 39,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The system of claim 35, wherein the computing device is configured to provide confirmation the possible adjustment has been accepted upon receiving the acceptance of the possible adjustment. (Zimmer: Column 10, Line 47-57; “...the route management module 140 may, in response to receiving the selection of the selectable input 230, send a text message including the text description of the taxiing route assignment 146 to the UI system 190 of FIG. 1. The text message may correspond to the taxiing routing message 186 of FIG. 1.”)
Regarding Claim 40,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The system of claim 35, wherein the computing device is configured to update a display of a map of the airport to include the adjusted route upon receiving the acceptance of the possible adjustment. (Zimmer: Column 11, Line 39-57)
Claims 24 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar and further in view of Guettier, as applied to claims 21-23, 28-35, and 38-40, above, and further in view of Shloosh (US 20180061243).
Regarding Claim 24,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21,...
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, does not teach
...wherein the different aircraft ground movement routes of the set of states include:
routes that cross a particular runway of the airport; and
routes that avoid crossing the particular runway of the airport.
However in the same field of endeavor, Shloosh teaches
...wherein the different aircraft ground movement routes of the set of states include:
routes that cross a particular runway of the airport; (Shloosh: Paragraph [0406]; “Once 2106 calculates there is enough time to cross the runway, 2107 uses process 3001 [FIG. 3] to display the Pilot the ATC command to cross the Runway. In addition, 2108 outputs a “cross runway” voice command over the ATC frequency directed at the flight crew aboard the aircraft. 2109 sends signal to the AFL [10] and flashed the lights at the crossings.”) and
routes that avoid crossing the particular runway of the airport. (Shloosh: Paragraph [0409], FIG. 24; “FIG. 24 illustrates a flow diagram of the processes in a method within the AMS [320] involved in avoiding congested taxiways and hotspot crossings when assigning routing to and from a runway.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, with the particular navigation considerations of Shloosh for the benefit of calculating the best taxiway routes, and calculating when aircraft can cross a runway. (Shloosh: Abstract)
Regarding Claim 36,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, further in view of Guettier, and further in view of Shloosh, teaches
The system of claim 35, wherein the levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states correspond to a probability that a number of landings taking place on a runway of the aircraft ground movement route in that respective state are decreasing. (Shloosh: Paragraph [0464] Calculation of the Takeoff to Landing ratio indicates how many landings are occurring on a particular runway.)
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, Ketabdar, Guettier, and Shloosh, is the same as stated for Claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 37,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, further in view of Guettier, and further in view of Shloosh, teaches
The system of claim 35, wherein the levels of belief in each respective state of the set of states correspond to a probability that a currently landing aircraft can exit a runway of the aircraft ground movement route in that respective state in a particular direction. (Shloosh: Paragraph [0400], [0447])
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, Ketabdar, Guettier, and Shloosh, is the same as stated for Claim 24 above.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, as applied to claims 21-23, 28-35, and 38-40, above, and further in view of Knoop (US 20030160708).
Regarding Claim 25,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21,...
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, does not teach
...wherein the different aircraft ground movement routes of the set of states include routes that include different directions from which other currently landing aircraft exit a particular runway of the airport.
However in the same field of endeavor, Knoop teaches
...wherein the different aircraft ground movement routes of the set of states include routes that include different directions from which other currently landing aircraft exit a particular runway of the airport. (Knoop: Paragraph [0101]; “The system checks that the runway is clear of aircraft and that no crossing or conflicting route has been established. The ground controller selects one or more runway exit points. Crossing taxiways, roadways, and runways are locked out from providing clear paths for traffic.”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, and further in view of Guettier, with the different aircraft ground movement routes of Knoop for the benefit of essentially removing the danger of human error in guiding that traffic. (Knoop: Paragraph [0001])
Regarding Claim 26,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, further in view of Guettier, and even further in view of Knoop, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport includes a number of landings currently taking place on a particular runway of the airport. (Knoop: Paragraph [0026]; “The controller will have knowledge of all movement, taxiing, landing, take off, movement of vehicle, etc. via a preferred color video monitor screen upon which a diagram of all or part of the airport taxiway and runway system is shown.”)
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, Ketabdar, Guettier, and Knoop, is the same as stated for Claim 25 above.
Regarding Claim 27,
Zimmer, in view of Law, further in view of Ketabdar, further in view of Guettier, and even further in view of Knoop, teaches
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the information associated with the current aircraft ground movements at the airport includes a current occupancy status of exit branches of a particular runway of the airport. (Knoop: Paragraph [0112]; “Taxiway exits for landing aircraft can be selected as long as there is no waiting aircraft occupying the space nor a route established which uses that space.”)
The motivation to combine Zimmer, Law, Ketabdar, Guettier, and Knoop, is the same as stated for Claim 25 above.
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663