DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-18 are currently pending.
2. Claims 16-18 are new.
3. Claims 6-7 and 9 are canceled.
4. Claims 1 and 12-15 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner (US 20050128129 A1), in view of Ramachandra (US 20220101738 A1), and in further view of Clark (US 20080275642 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Conner teaches a flight display comprising (Conner: [0050]):
A memory maintaining a flight display system application; and one or more processors configured to execute the flight display system application causing the flight display to (Conner: [0193]):
Receive an arrival airport, a plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport, and a first arrival runway from a runway overrun awareness and alerting system; wherein the arrival airport and the first arrival runway are from a flight plan (Conner: [0047], [0207], and [0241] Note that the arrival airport and arrival runway being from a flight plan is equivalent to the selected airport and selected runway.);
Display the arrival airport, the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport, and the first arrival runway (Conner: [0090] and [0161] Note that Fig. 5 displays the arrival airport and the plurality of runways (RWY 16R/34L and RWY 11/29) associated with the arrival airport. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the arrival airport and plurality of runways must be received if they are being rendered on the display.);
Receive an airport moving map from an airport moving map application, wherein the airport moving map is an overhead view of the arrival airport (Conner: [0241]);
And receive at least a first detection zone from the runway overrun awareness and alerting system; wherein the first detection zone is associated with an aligned runway; wherein the aligned runway is one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport; and display the airport moving map with the first detection zone overlaid on the airport moving map; wherein the first detection zone is displayed relative to the aligned runway; wherein the aligned runway comprises an approach threshold; wherein the first detection zone is overlaid on the airport moving map starting from the approach threshold (Conner: [0090], [0127], and [0214] Note that Figs. 5 and 10 display the first detection zone overlaid on the airport moving map relative to the aligned runway starting from the approach thresholds (longitude/latitude display limits).).
Conner does not explicitly teach to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and to transmit the second arrival runway to the runway overrun awareness and alerting system. However, Conner teaches in at least [0092], [0106], and [0108] to receive and transmit a selection of an arrival runway from a plurality of runways based on the runway selection algorithm. The selection of the arrival runway is equivalent to the selected runway and the first and second arrival runways each being one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival runway is equivalent to runways RWY 16R/34L and RWY 11/29 (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and transmit the second arrival runway to the system as similarly shown in Conner's [0092], [0106], and [0108] use of runway selection to provide the benefit of determining runway parameters and rendering a runway envelope on the aircraft display. The selection of the runway provides annunciated and visual alerts to the pilots for the selected runway to increases the awareness of the pilots.
Additionally, Ramachandra teaches to receive a selection of a second arrival runway; wherein the first arrival runway and the second arrival runway are each one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport (Ramachandra: [0038]);
And transmit the second arrival runway to the runway overrun awareness and alerting system (Ramachandra: [0039]).
Conner and Ramachandra are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conner to incorporate the teachings of Ramachandra to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and transmit the second arrival runway to the ROAAS because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of possible runways for the aircraft to land on to select the best runway based on specific parameters. Selecting an alternate runway improves the display and can provide the additional benefit of changing the flight plan to increase efficiency.
Conner and Ramachandra fail to explicitly teach wherein the flight display system application causes the flight display to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone; wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches wherein the aligned runway comprises an approach threshold; wherein the first detection zone is overlaid on the airport moving map starting from the approach threshold (Clark: [0035], [0039], and [0051] Note that Clark explains the area of interest includes is not limited and may include an airport or runway. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to overlay the first detection zone on the airport moving map for the area of interest runway instead of the area of interest airport absent a showing to the contrary.);
And wherein the flight display system application causes the flight display to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone; wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold (Clark: [0051] and [0054] Note that a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone, wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold is equivalent to the runway identifier located at the end of the runway. Figs. 4-6 display the runway identifier 14R at the first end of the first detection zone because it is the end opposed to the second end of the first detection zone that extends a predetermined distance beyond the runway.).
Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conner and Ramachandra to incorporate the teachings of Clark to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone because it provides the benefit of displaying the current position of the aircraft in the context of other important information to improve pilot awareness and aircraft safety. Runway and approach information provides the pilots with additional situational awareness during aircraft operation.
11. Regarding Claim 2, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Ramachandra teaches the second arrival runway is not the first arrival runway (Ramachandra: [0038] Note that the first arrival runway is equivalent to the destination runway and the second arrival runway is equivalent to the alternative runway. Therefore, the first and second arrival runways are different.).
12. Regarding Claim 3, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Ramachandra teaches the aligned runway is the first arrival runway (Ramachandra: [0034], [0038], and [0039] Note that the aligned runway is equivalent to the appropriate runway based on the aircraft and runway characteristics. Also, note that the aligned runway being the first arrival runway is equivalent to the aircraft having appropriate flap position and descent speed for the destination airport.).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Ramachandra teaches the aligned runway is the second arrival runway (Ramachandra: [0034], [0038], and [0039] Note that the aligned runway is equivalent to the appropriate runway based on the aircraft and runway characteristics. Also, note that the aligned runway being the first arrival runway is equivalent to the aircraft having appropriate flap position and descent speed for the alternate airport.).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Ramachandra teaches the aligned runway is not the first arrival runway or the second arrival runway (Ramachandra: [0034], [0038], and [0039] Note that the aligned runway is equivalent to the appropriate runway based on the aircraft and runway characteristics. Also, note that the aligned runway is not the first or second arrival runway is equivalent to the pilot comparing multiple alternative destination runways.).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Conner teaches the first detection zone comprises a trapezoidal shape (Conner: [0127] Note that the envelope in Fig. 10 is a trapezoid.).
16. Regarding Claim 10, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Conner teaches the flight display system application causes the flight display to receive a plurality of detection zones and overlay the plurality of detection zones on the airport moving map (Conner: [0088] and [0090] Note that the plurality of detection zones overlaid on the airport moving map is equivalent to display the envelopes 44 and 46 on the display (Fig. 5).).
17. Regarding Claim 11, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Conner teaches the plurality of detection zones are associated with at least the first arrival runway, the second arrival runway, and the aligned runway (Conner: [0088] and [0090] Note that the plurality of detection zones associated with the first, second, and aligned runways are equivalent to display the envelopes 44 and 46 on the display (Fig. 5). Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the aligned runway may also be the first or second arrival runway.).
18. Regarding Claim 12, Conner teaches a system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a flight display comprising (Conner: [0050]):
A memory maintaining a flight display system application; and one or more processors configured to execute the flight display system application causing the flight display to (Conner: [0193]):
Receive an arrival airport, a plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport, and a first arrival runway from a runway overrun awareness and alerting system; wherein the arrival airport and the first arrival runway are from a flight plan (Conner: [0047], [0207], and [0241] Note that the arrival airport and arrival runway being from a flight plan is equivalent to the selected airport and selected runway.);
Display the arrival airport, the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport, and the first arrival runway (Conner: [0090] and [0161] Note that Fig. 5 displays the arrival airport and the plurality of runways (RWY 16R/34L and RWY 11/29) associated with the arrival airport. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the arrival airport and plurality of runways must be received if they are being rendered on the display.);
Receive an airport moving map from an airport moving map application, wherein the airport moving map is an overhead view of the arrival airport (Conner: [0241]);
And receive at least a first detection zone from the runway overrun awareness and alerting system; wherein the first detection zone is associated with an aligned runway; wherein the aligned runway is one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport; and display the airport moving map with the first detection zone overlaid on the airport moving map; wherein the first detection zone is displayed relative to the aligned runway; and a common computing module configured to execute the runway overrun awareness and alerting system; wherein the aligned runway comprises an approach threshold; wherein the first detection zone is overlaid on the airport moving map starting from the approach threshold (Conner: [0090], [0127], and [0214] Note that Figs. 5 and 10 display the first detection zone overlaid on the airport moving map relative to the aligned runway starting from the approach thresholds (longitude/latitude display limits).).
Conner does not explicitly teach to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and to transmit the second arrival runway to the runway overrun awareness and alerting system. However, Conner teaches in at least [0092], [0106], and [0108] to receive and transmit a selection of an arrival runway from a plurality of runways based on the runway selection algorithm. The selection of the arrival runway is equivalent to the selected runway and the first and second arrival runways each being one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival runway is equivalent to runways RWY 16R/34L and RWY 11/29 (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and transmit the second arrival runway to the system as similarly shown in Conner's [0092], [0106], and [0108] use of runway selection to provide the benefit of determining runway parameters and rendering a runway envelope on the aircraft display. The selection of the runway provides annunciated and visual alerts to the pilots for the selected runway to increases the awareness of the pilots.
Additionally, Ramachandra teaches to receive a selection of a second arrival runway; wherein the first arrival runway and the second arrival runway are each one of the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport (Ramachandra: [0038]);
And transmit the second arrival runway to the runway overrun awareness and alerting system (Ramachandra: [0039]).
Conner and Ramachandra are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conner to incorporate the teachings of Ramachandra to receive a selection of a second arrival runway and transmit the second arrival runway to the ROAAS because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of possible runways for the aircraft to land on to select the best runway based on specific parameters. Selecting an alternate runway improves the display and can provide the additional benefit of changing the flight plan to increase efficiency.
Conner and Ramachandra fail to explicitly teach wherein the flight display system application causes the flight display to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone; wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches wherein the aligned runway comprises an approach threshold; wherein the first detection zone is overlaid on the airport moving map starting from the approach threshold (Clark: [0035], [0039], and [0051] Note that Clark explains the area of interest includes is not limited and may include an airport or runway. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to overlay the first detection zone on the airport moving map for the area of interest runway instead of the area of interest airport absent a showing to the contrary.);
And wherein the flight display system application causes the flight display to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone; wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold (Clark: [0051] and [0054] Note that a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone, wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold is equivalent to the runway identifier located at the end of the runway. Figs. 4-6 display the runway identifier 14R at the first end of the first detection zone because it is the end opposed to the second end of the first detection zone that extends a predetermined distance beyond the runway.).
Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conner and Ramachandra to incorporate the teachings of Clark to display a runway identifier associated with the aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone because it provides the benefit of displaying the current position of the aircraft in the context of other important information to improve pilot awareness and aircraft safety. Runway and approach information provides the pilots with additional situational awareness during aircraft operation.
19. Regarding Claim 13, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Ramachandra teaches a second common computing module configured to execute a flight management system; wherein the runway overrun awareness and alerting system is configured to receive the arrival airport from the flight plan via the flight management system (Ramachandra: [0017], [0019], and [0038]).
20. Regarding Claim 14, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Conner teaches a navigation database; wherein the runway overrun awareness and alerting system is configured to receive the plurality of runways associated with the arrival airport from the navigation database (Conner: [0178] and [0217]).
21. Regarding Claim 15, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 12, and further, Ramachandra teaches a Synthetic Vision Module with Head Up Display configured to execute the airport moving map application (Ramachandra: [Claim 10]).
22. Regarding Claim 16, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Clark teaches the flight display system application draws an own aircraft symbol on the airport moving map based on a geo-reference of the airport moving map and a geo-reference of an aircraft: wherein the own aircraft symbol defines where the aircraft is in relation to the airport moving map; wherein the airport moving map automatically scrolls with movement of the aircraft in real time (Clark: [0030] and [0031]).
23. Regarding Claim 17, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Clark teaches the flight display system application highlights the first detection zone associated with the aligned runway (Conner: [0088], [0091], and [0106] Note that the first detection zone is highlighted based on the visually distinct way it is rendered compared to the other runway.).
24. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conner (US 20050128129 A1), in view of Ramachandra (US 20220101738 A1), in view of Clark (US 20080275642 A1), and in further view of Barraci (US 20140097972 A1).
25. Regarding Claim 18, Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark remains as applied above in Claim 17.
Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark fail to explicitly teach the own aircraft symbol is colored with a same color as respective of the plurality of detection zones when aligned with a corresponding detection zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barraci teaches the… aircraft symbol is colored with a same color as respective of the plurality of detection zones when aligned with a corresponding detection zone (Barraci: [0027]).
Conner, Ramachandra, Clark, and Barraci are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Conner, Ramachandra, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Barraci for the aircraft symbol to be colored with a same color as a detection zone when aligned with a corresponding detection zone because it provides the benefit of improving situational awareness of the pilots by color coding aircraft to match the paths. As explained in [0012], this minimizes confusion by the pilots and prevents the wrong arrival procedure from being flown.
Barraci does not explicitly teach the own aircraft symbol is colored. However, Barraci teaches in [0027] that other aircraft is color coded to match the zone in front of the runway.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the own aircraft symbol to be colored the same color as the detection zone when aligned as similarly shown in Barraci's [0027] use of color-coding other aircraft to provide the benefit of minimizing confusion for the pilots and preventing wrong approach procedures for the own aircraft.
Response to Arguments
26. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-18 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. Clark (US 20080275642 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of displaying a runway identifier associated with an aligned runway at a first end of the first detection zone which is opposed to a second end of the first detection zone, wherein the second end is disposed at the approach threshold in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0051] and [0054]. Clark teaches to display a runway identifier at the first end of the first detection zone (end of the runway) to improve pilot awareness and aircraft safety.
27. Conner (US 20050128129 A1), in view of Ramachandra (US 20220101738 A1), in view of Clark (US 20080275642 A1), and in further view of Barraci (US 20140097972 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
28. Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-15 remain rejected and Claims 16-18 are newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conner (US 20150112517 A1)
Nagonda (US 20230386352 A1)
30. 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663