DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/15/2026. Claim 2 was previously canceled. With the filed amendment, new claims 19-20 have been added. Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 03/31/2026 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 5 is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
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 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, 13-15, and 17-20 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”), and further in view of Mere et al. (US 2012/0136562 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mere.
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.
The combination of Elie and Zafar does not explicitly teach “the reception step comprising receiving a route directly from Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) via a corresponding message received via a data transmission link or by performing an extraction of an audio message from the ATC using a voice transcription.” However, Mere does teach this limitation. (Mere ¶ 105 discloses that an onboard device for guiding an aircraft to follow a ground path can comprise “communication means for automatically receiving as usual from the outside of the aircraft, and including from an air controller or a controller on the ground, said path, for instance through a data transmission link.” This at least teaches “the reception step comprising receiving a route directly from Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) via a corresponding message received via a data transmission link” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the instant specification, “the reception step comprising receiving a route directly from Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) via a corresponding message received via a data transmission link or by performing an extraction of an audio message from the ATC using a voice transcription” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “the reception step comprising receiving a route directly from Air Traffic Control (‘ATC’) via a corresponding message received via a data transmission link” 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 route to be received from air traffic control via a message received over a data transmission link as taught by Mere with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because this is modification is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Receiving the route from air traffic control via a message received over a data transmission link would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the taxi aiding method of Mere or whether integrated into the aircraft navigation method disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere 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 disclosed by the combination of Elie and Mere 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 with ensuring safety and increasing efficiency for airport operations.
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Elie also 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, Zafar, and Mere teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Elie further teaches “wherein the surveillance step (E2) comprises: 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, Zafar, and Mere 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 disclosed by the combination of Elie and Mere by using a dynamic map of the airport 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 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, Zafar, and Mere 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 ¶¶ 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.”)
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere teaches “The method as claimed in claim 1,” and Mere further teaches “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).” (Mere ¶ 102: “this trajectory on the ground allows the implementation of an automatic (or semi-automatic) guiding of the 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 disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing the aircraft to automatically follow the received trajectory as is taught by Mere 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.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere teaches the system of claim 14, and Elie also 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, Zafar, and Mere 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.” Further, 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, Zafar, and Mere 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.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere teaches “The system according to claim 14,” and Mere also teaches “wherein the reception unit is configured to receive a path to be followed through a manual entry by a pilot.” (Mere ¶ 104 discloses that an onboard device for guiding an aircraft to follow a ground path can comprise “input means, in particular a keyboard and/or a mouse being associated for instance with a screen, so as to allow an operator, including the aircraft pilot, to enter said path in the device 2, either via a direct manual input or via a graphic input by clicking on the elements of a displayed map.”)
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 system disclosed by the combination of Elie and Zafar by allowing a pilot to manually input the path to be followed as taught by Mere with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Mere ¶ 29 teaches that this allows the system to aid the pilot in following the trajectory either through automatic piloting or by showing a visual representation of the path for the pilot to manually follow.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 19 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar and Mere as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roif (US 5,736,955 A).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere 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 a centerline of the traffic lane and at least one of the following characteristic elements 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, 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.” Roif teaches the reception of data relating to a center line of the taxiing area, a boundary edge of the runway which reads on the claimed “at least one edge line of the traffic lane,” and a boundary edge where the whole taxiing area can be painted with a coating, which reads on the claimed “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.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 6, consistent with the specification, the data reception step comprising “at least one of the following characteristic elements 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 the “at least one edge line of the traffic lane” and the “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” have both been addressed here, only one of the two options is actually required by the claim.
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, Zafar, and Mere by detecting centerlines and edge boundary lines of the taxiing area where the taxiing area can be covered with a paint coating 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 since 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.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing the aircraft to navigate a path following the runway centerline and staying within the boundary edge lines of the painted taxiing area would provide an objective trajectory that would be likely to avoid collisions.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar and Mere 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 7:
The combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elie in view of Zafar and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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 wherein the heading is maintained. Additionally, 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, Zafar, and Mere 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 that is disclosed by the combination of Elie, Zafar, and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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, Zafar, and Mere 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kanagarajan et al. (US 2019/0381977 A1) ¶ 37 discloses an onboard system in which “hot spot prediction system 130 may determine the aircraft's planned route along the runway and/or the taxiway using the data received from the cockpit system 1106 and the airport system 120B (e.g., clearances, navigation data, ATC voice transcripts, real-time position of the aircraft, etc.).”
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 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
Prosecution Insights