DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 01/27/2026. Claim 2 is canceled, and new claims 16-18 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-18 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objections:
Applicant has argued that the claim objections are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn these objections accordingly.
Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Applicant has argued that the claims should not be interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Specifically, applicant has argued that the claimed terms do not include the term “means,” and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the surveillance unit to be a device such as a computer, and would have understood the assistance unit to be a display. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the interpretation based on the analysis below based on Prongs A-C set forth in MPEP 2181(I):
Prong A: While it is true that the claims do not recite the term “means,” the claims do recite the generic placeholder “unit.” MPEP 2181(I)(A) specifically lists “unit” as an example of a generic placeholder.
Prong B: The “surveillance unit” and “assistance unit” are each modified by functional language. Specifically, the “surveillance unit” performs the surveillance step (E2) of claim 1, and is configured to “survey the airport so as to be able to detect at least one characteristic element of a traffic lane of the airport, to determine a current relative position of the aircraft (AC) with respect to the characteristic element detected, and to deduce therefrom at least one so-called assistance information item,” and further “determine, from the data received by the reception unit and a possible authorization from air-traffic control, an authorization or a prohibition to enter onto the runway” as recited in claim 14. Additionally, the “assistance unit” performs the assistance step (E3) of claim 1 and is configured to “assist the pilot of the aircraft (AC) when taxiing on the airport in order to have the aircraft (AC) follow a path (TR) by taking into account at least said assistance information item.”
Prong C: The generic placeholder terms are not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. Although it may be possible for a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the surveillance unit and the assistance unit could respectively refer to a computer and a display, the structure of the units is not sufficiently clear without consulting the specification. For example, the surveillance unit could be any number of things such as a computer processor, a group of sensors, or an air traffic control facility. Further, the assistance unit could be any number of things such as a display screen, a communications transmitter, or an aircraft autopilot controller. Accordingly, the specific structure of the units is not clear from the claims without referring to the specification.
Since the claim limitations pass Prongs A-C as demonstrated above, the interpretation of the claims as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been maintained.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: In line 2 of claim 5, it appears that the phrase “at least one of the following steps” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a surveillance unit” configured to implement the surveillance step (E2) of claim 1
“at least one assistance unit” configured to implement the assistance step (E3) of claim 1
“a surveillance unit configured to survey the airport so as to be able to detect at least one characteristic element of a traffic lane of the airport, to determine a current relative position of the aircraft (AC) with respect to the characteristic element detected, and to deduce therefrom at least one so-called assistance information item, the surveillance unit comprising at least one odometer at least to implement a visual odometry in order to determine at least the position of the aircraft (AC) making it possible to obtain said current relative position of the aircraft (AC),” and “wherein the surveillance unit is configured to determine, from the data received by the reception unit and a possible authorization from air-traffic control, an authorization or a prohibition to enter onto the runway” (claim 14)
“an assistance unit configured to assist the pilot of the aircraft (AC) when taxiing on the airport in order to have the aircraft follow a path (TR) by taking into account at least said assistance information item” (claim 14)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (¶¶ 75-76: “The surveillance unit 8 comprises a set 11 of data sources allowing the system 1 to receive data on the external environment of the aircraft AC. … The surveillance unit 8 also comprises a data processing device 12 (PROCESS1 for ‘data Processing device’) configured to perform different processing operations and computations specified hereinbelow.” Additionally, ¶¶ 107-114: “in a first embodiment, the assistance unit 9 comprises an information presentation device 24 (INFORM for ‘Information presentation device’). This information presentation device 24 is configured to present one or more assistance information items, namely piloting assistance and/or ground navigation assistance information, in the cockpit of the aircraft AC. … in a second embodiment, as a variant or complementing said first embodiment, the assistance unit 9 comprises an assistance system 25 configured to implement an at least partially automatic piloting of the aircraft AC. In this second embodiment, the assistance system 25 of the assistance unit 9 comprises one of the following devices: in a first variant, a maintaining device 26 configured to have the aircraft automatically maintain a heading to be followed; in a second variant, a following device 27 configured to have the aircraft automatically follow a straight line; in a third variant, a following and management device 28 configured to have both the aircraft automatically follow a straight line and an automatic management of the speed of the aircraft; or in a fourth variant, an automatic piloting device 29 configured to implement an automatic piloting of the aircraft to follow a route. Although, for the purposes of simplification of the drawing, the four assistance devices 26, 27, 28 and 29 are represented schematically in FIG. 1, the assistance system 25 of the assistance unit 9 comprises only one of these assistance devices 26, 27, 28 and 29 (ASSIST 1 to ASSIST 4 for «Assistance device») depending on the variant embodiment which is implemented in the system 1.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie et al. (WO 2024/056972 A1), hereinafter referred to as Elie, in view of Zafar (the non-patent article “Safety Control Management at Airport Taxiing to Take-Off Procedure”).
Regarding claim 1:
Elie discloses the following limitations:
“A method for assisting a pilot of an aircraft when the aircraft is taxiing on a traffic lane of an airport, the method comprising: a surveillance step (E2), implemented by a surveillance unit, at least to survey the airport so as to be able to detect at least one characteristic element of a traffic lane of the airport.” (Elie ¶ 48: “there is provided a computer program comprising instructions for implementing the steps of a method according to the invention, when the computer program is executed by at least one processor or computer.” Additionally, Elie ¶ 95: “During step S60, the computer vision sensor VISION detects a plurality of reference terrestrial points AMER_2, AMER_3 (e.g. navigation lights surrounding the landing runway, markings on the landing runway) in images acquired by the acquisition device CAM.” The detected “markings on the runway” read on the “at least one characteristic element of a traffic lane of the airport” as claimed.)
“to determine a current relative position of the aircraft (AC) with respect to the characteristic element detected, and to deduce therefrom at least one assistance information item.” (Elie ¶ 98: “navigation module LOC_VISION determines during steps S50 and S70 navigation data OUT_LOC_VIS from the differences ox, oy between observed and estimated relative positions of the terrestrial reference points AMER_1-AMER_3 with respect to said aircraft AC.”)
“the surveillance step (E2) comprising a data reception step (E2A) comprising at least one odometry step (E2A2) at least to implement … odometry in order to determine at least the position of the aircraft (AC) making it possible to obtain said current relative position of the aircraft (AC).” (Elie ¶ 101: “During step S90, the navigation module LOC_VISION determines navigation data OUT_LOC_VIS from data from the inertial measurement unit IMU and the odometer ODOM.”)
“and an assistance step (E3), implemented by at least one assistance unit, at least to assist the pilot of the aircraft (AC) when the aircraft (AC) is taxiing on the airport in order to have the aircraft (AC) follow a path (TR), by taking into account at least said assistance information item.” (Elie ¶¶ 26-27: “the control module provides the guidance module with said first navigation data determined by the first navigation module. This embodiment makes it possible to precisely guide the aircraft during the different phases of an aircraft flight, and in particular during landing and taxiing.” Also, Elie ¶ 63: “In the context of the invention, aircraft navigation data designates data relating to the position and/or movement of the aircraft and includes, for example, geographic coordinates (e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude), speed, heading.”)
The main embodiment of Elie does not explicitly disclose the use of “visual odometry.” However, an alternative embodiment of Elie does teach this limitation. (Elie ¶ 37: “within the scope of the invention, other embodiments could be envisaged in which navigation data are determined from acquired images, for example using visual odometry techniques, cartographic registration techniques, machine learning algorithms, etc.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the main embodiment of Elie by incorporating the use of visual odometry as taught by Elie ¶ 37, because this modification amounts to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., visual odometry) for another (i.e., non-visual odometry) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the odometer of the main embodiment of Elie with a visual odometry system as taught by Elie ¶ 37 to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the aircraft based on image data. Elie ¶ 37 explicitly teaches that visual odometry techniques could be used with the main embodiment to allow for the determination of the navigation data from acquired images.
The following limitations are not specifically taught by Elie, but are taught by Zafar:
“a reception step (E1), implemented by a reception unit, at least to receive at least a part of the path (TR) to be followed by the aircraft (AC) on the airport.” (Zafar p. 6143 § 4.2: “After entering in the taxi area, the aircraft sends a request to the ground controller to get route for taxiing.”)
“wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises a data processing step (E2B) at least to determine, from the data received in the data reception step (E2A) and a possible authorization from air-traffic control, an authorization or a prohibition to enter onto the runway, said authorization or said prohibition representing the assistance information item.” (Zafar p. 6144: “a runway is assigned after an aircraft has obtained permission for taxiing and the list does not exceed maximum permissible limit. … An aircraft needs permission for take-off after putting request to the local controller.” This at least teaches to determine an authorization to enter the runway as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Elie by allowing for the reception of the taxiing route and determining an authorization for entering the runway as taught by Zafar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Zafar p. 6139 § 3 teaches that this provides an effective communication mechanism that helps to ensure safety and increase efficiency for airport operations.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Zafar also teaches “wherein the reception step (E1) comprises the reception of at least one of the following information items representing at least said part of path (TR): the heading to be followed by the aircraft (AC); or the path to be followed by the aircraft (AC).” (Zafar p. 6143 § 4.2: “After entering in the taxi area, the aircraft sends a request to the ground controller to get route for taxiing.” This at least teaches the reception of “the path to be followed by the aircraft (AC)” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 3, consistent with the specification, “the reception of at least one of the following information items representing at least said part of path (TR): the heading to be followed by the aircraft (AC); or the path to be followed by the aircraft (AC)” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “path to be followed by the aircraft (AC)” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Elie by allowing for the reception of the taxiing route to be followed by the aircraft as taught by Zafar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Zafar p. 6139 § 3 teaches that this provides an effective communication mechanism that helps to ensure safety and increase efficiency for airport operations.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Elie further teaches “wherein the data reception step (E2A) further comprises: an optical detection step (E2A1) comprising an imaging substep at least to take images of the environment outside of the aircraft (AC) and an image processing substep at least to process at least some of the images taken in said imaging substep so as to detect at least one characteristic element relating to a traffic lane, represented in one of said processed images.” (Elie ¶ 95: “During step S60, the computer vision sensor VISION detects a plurality of reference terrestrial points AMER_2, AMER_3 (e.g. navigation lights surrounding the landing runway, markings on the landing runway) in images acquired by the acquisition device CAM.”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Elie further teaches “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises at least one of the following steps: a data reception step (E2C) comprising the reception of position information from at least one of the following data sources of the aircraft (AC): an inertial reference system, a satellite positioning system, an odometer, a tachymeter, an optoelectronic sensor, such position information making it possible to determine an absolute position of the aircraft (AC).” (Elie ¶¶ 101: “During step S90, the navigation module LOC_VISION determines navigation data OUT_LOC_VIS from data from the inertial measurement unit IMU and the odometer ODOM.” Also, Elie ¶ 63: “In the context of the invention, aircraft navigation data designates data relating to the position and/or movement of the aircraft and includes, for example, geographic coordinates (e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude), speed, heading. Navigation data can be defined absolutely relative to the Earth reference frame.” This at least teaches the surveillance step (E2) comprising a data reception step (E2C) comprising the reception of position information from an inertial reference system and an odometer as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 5, consistent with the specification, the “data reception step (E2C) comprising the reception of position information from at least one of the following data sources of the aircraft (AC): an inertial reference system, a satellite positioning system, an odometer, a tachymeter, an optoelectronic sensor” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “inertial reference system” and “odometer” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Zafar also teaches “wherein the surveillance step (E2) uses a dynamic map of the airport.” (Zafar p. 6143 § 4.2: “The dynamic model contains the control management system used for updating state space of the airport as a result of movement from taxiing to take-off for an aircraft.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Elie by using a dynamic map of the airport as taught by Dame with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that traffic and environmental factors are continually changing, and knowledge of these updated factors could help to avoid any unnecessary collisions.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Elie further teaches “wherein the assistance step (E3) comprises at least one step (E3A) at least to present piloting assistance and/or ground navigation assistance information in the cockpit of the aircraft (AC).” (Elie ¶ 27: “This embodiment makes it possible to precisely guide the aircraft during the different phases of an aircraft flight, and in particular during landing and taxiing.”)
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
Elie teaches “An aircraft, comprising: at least one system as claimed in claim 14.” (Elie ¶ 48: “there is provided an aircraft comprising a navigation system according to the invention.”)
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method according to claim 1,” and Elie also teaches “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises a data processing step (E2B) at least to determine a consolidated absolute position of the aircraft (AC), by using position information from a plurality of different data sources.” (Elie ¶ 14: “By ‘navigation data’ is meant here data relating to the position and/or movement of the aircraft, such as geographic coordinates (e.g. latitude, longitude, altitude)… In the context of invention, a ‘position’ may designate an absolute position defined in relation to the Earth's reference frame.” Also, Elie ¶ 39: “This embodiment allows for multi-sensor data fusion to determine aircraft navigation data. In particular, the use of an inertial unit makes it possible to determine navigation data from inertial data; and the use of a Kalman filter makes it possible to correct this navigation data from data from other sensors (i.e. recalibration of the inertial navigation to compensate for drift). Thus, the combination of an inertial unit and a Kalman filter makes it possible to accurately determine the aircraft's navigation data from independent sensors of different types.”)
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method according to claim 1,” and Elie also teaches “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises a data processing step (E2B) at least to process the data received in the data reception step so as to determine the current relative position of the aircraft (AC) with respect to the characteristic element.” (Elie ¶ 34: “a step of determining an observed relative position of said at least one reference terrestrial point detected with respect to said aircraft from said acquired images; and a step of determining an estimated relative position of said at least one reference terrestrial point detected with respect to said aircraft from a position of said aircraft determined by the first navigation module and a known position of said at least one terrestrial point.”)
Claim 18 additionally includes a step “to deduce, if necessary, a current deviation of the aircraft (AC) with respect to the path to be followed, said current deviation representing the assistance information.” This step is a contingent limitation consistent with MPEP 2111.04(II), as it is only required to occur “if necessary.” Accordingly, the deduction step is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Villaume et al. (US 2009/0150008 A1), hereinafter referred to as Villaume.
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the assistance step (E3) comprises a heading-maintaining substep (E3B1) at least to have the aircraft (AC) automatically maintain a heading to be followed, received in the reception step (E1).” However, Villaume does teach this limitation. (Villaume ¶¶ 52 and 78 disclose the “automatic guidance of the aircraft following the longitudinal axis along a predefined trajectory,” where “the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain, and can be described in mathematical form, for example in the form of a succession of straight segments.” Automatically guiding the aircraft to follow a straight segment reads on having the aircraft automatically maintain a heading as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by automatically guiding the aircraft to follow a straight segment as taught by Villaume with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Villaume ¶ 78 teaches that “It is assumed that the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain”; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the shortest (i.e., fastest) connection between two points is a straight line where the heading is maintained. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to automatically maintain a heading and follow the received trajectory would improve convenience for the pilot and reduce the likelihood of human error while following the received trajectory.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the assistance step (E3) comprises a straight-line-following substep (E3B2) at least to have the aircraft (AC) automatically follow a straight line, received in the reception step (E1).” However, Villaume does teach this limitation. (Villaume ¶¶ 76-78 disclose “to generate a controlled speed for an aircraft A, in particular a transport airplane, which rolls on the ground along a ground rolling trajectory TR (as represented in FIG. 3), while complying with a speed profile PV,” where “It is assumed that the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain, and can be described in mathematical form, for example in the form of a succession of straight segments.” Additionally, Villaume ¶ 58 discloses “means for receiving said trajectory which comprises a series of successive elements.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing the aircraft to automatically follow a straight-line path as taught by Villaume with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Villaume ¶ 78 teaches that “It is assumed that the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain”; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the shortest (i.e., fastest) connection between two points is a straight line. Also, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to automatically follow the trajectory would improve convenience for the pilot and reduce the likelihood of human error while following the received trajectory.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the assistance step (E3) comprises a straight-line-following and speed management substep (E3B3) in order to have both the aircraft (AC) automatically follow a straight line, received in the reception step (E1), and an automatic management of the speed of the aircraft (AC).” However, Villaume does teach this limitation. (Villaume ¶¶ 76-78 disclose “to generate a controlled speed for an aircraft A, in particular a transport airplane, which rolls on the ground along a ground rolling trajectory TR (as represented in FIG. 3), while complying with a speed profile PV,” where “It is assumed that the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain, and can be described in mathematical form, for example in the form of a succession of straight segments.” Additionally, Villaume ¶ 58 discloses “means for receiving said trajectory which comprises a series of successive elements.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing the aircraft to automatically follow along a straight-line path at a controlled speed as taught by Villaume with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Villaume ¶ 78 teaches that “It is assumed that the trajectory TR to be followed is a continuous line connecting two points of the airport domain”; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the shortest (i.e., fastest) connection between two points is a straight line. Also, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to automatically follow the path at a controlled speed would improve convenience for the pilot and reduce the likelihood of human error while following the received trajectory.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the assistance step (E3) comprises an automatic piloting substep (E3B4) at least to implement an automatic piloting of the aircraft (AC) to follow the path, received in the reception step (E1).” However, Villaume does teach this limitation. (Villaume ¶¶ 213-215: “said device 1 forms part of a system 37 which is intended for the automatic longitudinal guidance of the aircraft A rolling on the ground along the trajectory TR. As represented in FIG. 7, this system 37 comprises, in addition to said device 1 (which is embodied according to any one of the embodiments 1A and 1B): control means 38, for example engines and/or brakes, which act on the (longitudinal) speed of the aircraft A.” Also, Villaume ¶ 58 discloses “means for receiving said trajectory which comprises a series of successive elements.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing the aircraft to automatically follow the received trajectory as is taught by Villaume with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to automatically follow the trajectory would improve convenience for the pilot and reduce the likelihood of human error while following the received trajectory, which could help to prevent collisions or inefficiencies.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dame et al. (US 2020/0027362 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dame.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises at least: a data reception step (E2A) comprising the reception of data relating to at least one of the following characteristic elements of the traffic lane: a centerline of the traffic lane; at least one edge line of the traffic lane; or at least one limit between a zone provided with a coating for taxiing on the traffic lane and a zone without any coating for taxiing.” However, Dame does teach this limitation. (Dame ¶ 34: “the computing system can detect and identify a runway and the corresponding centerline of the runway using airport markings detected within sensor data.” This disclosure at least teaches the surveillance step (E2) comprising a data reception step (E2A) comprising the reception of data relating to a centerline of the traffic lane as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 6, consistent with the specification, the “data reception step (E2A) comprising the reception of data relating to at least one of the following characteristic elements of the traffic lane: a centerline of the traffic lane; at least one edge line of the traffic lane; or at least one limit between a zone provided with a coating for taxiing on the traffic lane and a zone without any coating for taxiing” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “centerline of the traffic lane” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing the reception of data related to a centerline of the runway as taught by Dame with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Dame ¶¶ 29 and 79-81 teach that this can help the aircraft to maintain a path following along the centerline of the runway and “adjust the orientation of the aircraft during ground navigation to remain center upon a ground path to avoid navigating off the path.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to navigate a path following the runway centerline would provide an objective trajectory that would be likely to avoid collisions.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises at least: a data reception step (E2A) comprising the reception of data relating to one or more characteristic elements comprising a mandatory characteristic element corresponding to a stop marking on the ground, said characteristic element or elements relating to a taxi-holding position of the airport.” However, Dame does teach this limitation. (Dame ¶ 104 and FIG. 8 reproduced below: “As shown in FIG. 8, the system 100 can further use sensor data to detect airport markings, such as sign 330, sign 332, and sign 334. … the computing system 102 can use the sign 332 to determine that the aircraft 202 should temporarily stop until further sensor data confirms that the runway is free for the aircraft 202 to use.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
626
389
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing for the reception of information related to stop markings on the ground as taught by Dame with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it is important for the system to recognize such stop markings so that the aircraft can stop when it is required to and avoid collisions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roif (US 5,736,955 A).
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Elie and Zafar teaches “The method according to claim 1,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the data reception step (E2A) further comprises a radar detection step (E2A3) at least to detect a limit between a zone provided with a coating for taxiing on the traffic lane and a zone without any coating for taxiing.” However, Roif does teach this limitation. (Roif col. 3 ll. 6-14: “paint or any other coating material that is non-reflective of radar signals is placed at the boundary edges and corners of the runway or on the center line of the landing/taxiing area or the whole landing/taxiing area. In any case, based upon the teaching of the present disclosure, one skilled in the art will be able to determine the optimal ‘painting’ pattern. Radar signals are emitted by the aircraft, and the lack of a return signal is used by onboard computers to define a perspective view of the landing/taxiing field.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by using radar sensing to detect the boundaries of the taxiing area by detecting coatings associated with the taxiing area as taught by Roif with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Roif col. 3 ll. 15-28 teach that with this modification, “the major components of the landing/taxiing guidance system are located on board the aircraft, and only minimal equipment is required on the ground,” where “only minimal equipment needs to be added to most aircraft to adapt the aircraft to the system embodying the present invention. … The maintenance of ground equipment is extremely low and easy, and this ground equipment can be easily and quickly set up.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662