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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on January 25th 2024.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 11th 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Status of the Claims
This Non-final action is in response to the applicant’s filling on November 18th 2025.
Claims 1-11 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but are moot. While the Examiner notes that the applicant is arguing the claim limitations recite " … detecting a future collision with the at least one detected obstacle if the current warning envelope touches the at least one detected obstacle, the current warning envelope assuming a shape reproducing, in a simplified manner, a front part of an external contour of the aircraft, and the current warning envelope is positioned in front of the aircraft at a corresponding distance …“. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1 and 10 over Liu (Patent No. US20210350715A1) in view of Colekelk (Patent No. CN103455296A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Patent No. US20210350715A1) in view of Colekelk (Patent No. CN103455296A).
Regarding claim 1 Liu teaches, a method for assisting the avoidance of a collision with an obstacle for an aircraft taxiing on an aerodrome, said method comprising; (See Liu paragraph 0058; “...a processor-implemented ground collision avoidance method in an ownship vehicle is provided. The method comprises: retrieving, from sensors on the ownship vehicle, position measurements for the ownship vehicle on the ground and for a dynamic obstacle on the ground; retrieving, by a processor on the ownship vehicle, mapping data from an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data and dimension data for any static obstruction (e.g., building, pole, etc.) on an airport surface; adjusting, by the processor, a position measurement for the ownship vehicle to a current ownship vehicle position based on coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database and historical aircraft movement data...”); a monitoring step (El), implemented by a monitoring unit (8), at least for monitoring the aerodrome so as to be able to detect at least one obstacle; (See Liu paragraph 0091; “…detecting, by sensors on the ownship vehicle, any dynamic obstacle including a ground vehicle or other aircraft, and any fixed obstacle including a building or poles in, near, or approaching the path of the ownship vehicle and the position, size, ground speed and heading of any dynamic obstacle…”); for determining a current relative position and a current relative speed of the aircraft relative to the at least one detected obstacle; (See Liu paragraph 0042; “…obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information (operation 204) for use in determining the position of the ownship aircraft and obstacles, the ground path of the ownship aircraft, and the potential ground path of dynamic obstacles (e.g., obstacles such as other aircraft, ground vehicles, and others) that are moving in the vicinity of the ownship. The processor can obtain ownship aircraft and obstacle information from sensors onboard the ownship aircraft…”); and for detecting a future collision of the aircraft with the at least one obstacle as a function of at least the current relative position and the current relative speed; (See Liu paragraph 0034 and 0036; “The controller is configured to predict the movement of the ownship aircraft using position and other maneuver information such as ground speed and heading information from the position sensors 108, heading sensors 110, and speed sensors 112… the predicted movement of the ownship aircraft, the predicted movement of dynamic obstacles, and the position of fixed obstacles (e.g., building), the controller is configured to predict a potential collision risk for the ownship aircraft with surrounding obstacles..”); the monitoring step (El) comprising a data processing step (ElB) implemented for determining at least one current warning envelope corresponding to a time, called collision time, and at least depending on said current relative position, on the current relative speed and on parameters of the aircraft; (See Liu paragraph 0063-0064; “The traffic predictive distance is set to a distance that allows the ownship aircraft to fully stop to avoid a collision if a collision risk is detected with the target aircraft. Based on the assumption that actions of the traffic aircraft are out of the control of the flight crew on the ownship aircraft, it is assumed that the traffic aircraft would continue to move forward at its current ground speed even when a potential collision risk is detected by the ownship aircraft. To guard against collision, a traffic predictive distance can be computed as follow: Traffic Predictive Distance=<Ownship Stop Time>*<Traffic Ground Speed>…FIG. 9 is a diagram depicting example predicted future positions for an ownship aircraft and example predicted future positions for a traffic aircraft from which collision risk assessment may be performed. The processor is configured to assess whether the ownship aircraft predictive envelope 902 overlaps with the traffic aircraft predictive envelope 904. When it is predicted that the two envelopes 902, 904 will overlap, as illustrated, the processor will generate a collision alert. Predicting whether the ownship aircraft predictive envelope 902 will overlap with the traffic aircraft predictive envelope 904 involves predicting future positions for the ownship aircraft predictive envelope 902 up to a look-ahead prediction distance 906 and predicting future positions of the traffic aircraft predictive envelope 904 up to a traffic predictive distance 908.”);
and an avoidance assistance step (E2), implemented by at least one avoidance assistance unit, at least in order to implement, in the event of the detection of a future collision in the monitoring step (El), at least one action configured for assisting the avoidance of the future collision; (See Liu figure 10.).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu does not teach and Colekelk teaches, and for detecting a future collision with the at least one detected obstacle if the current warning envelope touches the at least one detected obstacle, the current warning envelope assuming a shape reproducing, in a simplified manner, a front part of an external contour of the aircraft, and the current warning envelope is positioned in front of the aircraft at a corresponding distance; (See paragraph 0079, 0082 and Figure 4 and 3; “In contrast, FIG. 4 illustrates another example graphical representation 400 presented on the display 124 as the aircraft device 202 taxis along a runway or the like to indicate the braking distance 402 determined for the aircraft device 202. The position of the graphic icon 404 on the display indicates the braking distance determined from the aircraft device 202. It should be appreciated that the current ground speed of the aircraft device 202 is greater than the current ground speed represented in FIG. 3. That is, the aircraft device 202 is likely to travel at a higher speed than when it is approaching the boarding terminal 204 shown in FIG. 3 when taxiing along the runway… As described herein, some embodiments of aircraft device 202 may have one or more ground object sensors 116 and / or HMI systems. In the simplified example shown in FIG. 4, the icon 408 corresponds to the detected ground object. Here, when a ground object is detected, the position and range of the ground object from the aircraft device 202 may be determined, and an icon 408 may be generated and then included on the display 124. Since the relative position of the icon indicates the distance from the ground object and the aircraft device 202, and because the safety ghost ship icon 406 indicates the range of possible stop positions of the aircraft device 202, the crew can better recognize the detected The risk of collision presented by the ground object to the aircraft device 202.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
746
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Both Liu and Colekelk are in the same field of method and systems for avoidance of a collision. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu assisting the avoidance of a collision with an obstacle for an aircraft with Colekelk warning envelope reproducing aircraft shape in a simplified manner positioned in front of the aircraft. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including warning envelope reproducing aircraft shape in a simplified manner positioned in front of the aircraft. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein the monitoring step (El) comprises a first data receiving step (E1A) implemented for receiving data on the external environment of the aircraft and a data processing step (EIB) implemented for processing the data received in the first data receiving step (EJIA) so as to detect, if applicable, an obstacle, for determining the current relative position and the current relative speed of the aircraft relative to the detected obstacle and for detecting a future collision; (See Liu paragraph 0033 and 0036; “The object detect sensors 114 can be used to detect potential obstructions in the projected path of the ownship aircraft and to measure information useful for characterizing the potential obstructions such as position, heading, ground speed, size, etc. The object detect sensors 114 are configured to detect both dynamic obstructions (e.g., ground vehicle or other aircraft) and fixed obstacles (e.g., buildings, poles, etc.) The object detect sensors 114 may be implemented using aircraft systems such as ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast), radar, and others…Based on the predicted movement of the ownship aircraft, the predicted movement of dynamic obstacles, and the position of fixed obstacles (e.g., building), the controller is configured to predict a potential collision risk for the ownship aircraft with surrounding obstacles and provide a collision risk warning via the display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew if substantial risk of collision is predicted.”).
Regarding claim 3 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, Liu further teaches wherein the first data receiving step (E IA) receives data on the external environment of the aircraft from at least one of the data sources of a first set, said first set comprising at least one of the following data sources of the aircraft: an optical detection device; a radar; a lidar: or a cooperative surveillance system; (See Liu paragraph 0042; “…The obstacle information may be obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor and ADS-B receiver, among others. For static obstacles, the information may also be obtained from an airport database.”).
Regarding claim 4 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, Liu further teaches wherein the data processing step(E1B) implements a data merging operation received from at least two different data sources of said first set in order to consolidate the data used for detecting an obstacle; (See Liu paragraph 0043; “The example process 200 includes position filtering (operation 206). Position filtering involves adjusting the position measurements for the ownship and dynamic obstacles obtained from onboard sensors to corrected position locations based on position data retrieved from an airport map database and historical aircraft movement data.”).
Regarding claim 5 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein the monitoring step (El) comprises a second data receiving step (E1C) implemented for receiving position data of the aircraft and a data processing step (E1B) implemented for processing the position data received in the second data receiving step (E1C) so as to determine a position, called absolute position, of the aircraft and for comparing the absolute position of the aircraft with an absolute position of at least one fixed object of the aerodrome in order to detect if applicable, a future collision with the fixed object representing an obstacle; (See Liu paragraph 0041 and 0042; “The example process 200 includes determining whether the ownship aircraft is on the ground (decision 202). The processor can use onboard avionics parameters such as WOW (Weight on Wheel), airspeed and/or altitude, etc. to determine whether the ownship aircraft is on the ground or in the air. For example, when the WOW state is true, the aircraft airspeed is below a configurable threshold (e.g., 80 knots), and the current altitude is the same as or close to the airport elevation, the processor can determine that the own aircraft is on the ground. When the processor determines that the ownship aircraft is on the ground (yes at decision 202), the process 200 proceeds with determining whether obstacles exist within the ground path of the ownship. Otherwise (no at decision 202), the process 200 does not continue until it is determined that the ownship aircraft is on the ground.
The example process 200 includes obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information (operation 204) for use in determining the position of the ownship aircraft and obstacles, the ground path of the ownship aircraft, and the potential ground path of dynamic obstacles (e.g., obstacles such as other aircraft, ground vehicles, and others) that are moving in the vicinity of the ownship. The processor can obtain ownship aircraft and obstacle information from sensors onboard the ownship aircraft. The information can include the latitude, longitude, altitude, ground speed, heading and dimension, among others, for both the ownship and potential obstacles. The potential obstacles may include dynamic obstacles such as other aircraft and ground vehicles, and also static obstacles such as a terminal building, pole, etc. The obstacle information may be obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor and ADS-B receiver, among others. For static obstacles, the information may also be obtained from an airport database.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
818
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Liu further teaches, wherein the avoidance assistance step (E2) is implemented for emitting at least one of the following messages: a warning message, or a ground navigation assistance message, said message being transmitted in at least one of the following forms: visual, or audible; (See Liu paragraph 0027; “Based on the predicted movement of the ownship aircraft, the predicted movement of moveable obstacles, and the position of fixed obstacles (e.g., building), the controller is configured to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle and provide a collision risk warning via the display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew if substantial risk of collision is predicted.”).
Regarding claim 9 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, Liu further teaches, wherein the avoidance assistance step (E2) is implemented for forcing the aircraft into an automatic avoidance maneuver, at least in the absence of appropriate action by the pilot after the emission of at least one message; (See Liu paragraph 0062-0063; “The ownship aircraft look-ahead prediction distance is set to a distance that would allow the ownship aircraft to fully stop within the look-ahead predictive distance if a potential collision is detected. The predictive distance for the ownship aircraft is a function of pilot reaction time and braking distance. In this example, the pilot reaction time is set as a predefined constant value (e.g., 2 seconds). An example computation for the look-ahead predictive distance is as follows: Distance=<Pilot Reaction Time>*<Ground Speed>+Braking Distance.
The traffic predictive distance is set to a distance that allows the ownship aircraft to fully stop to avoid a collision if a collision risk is detected with the target aircraft. Based on the assumption that actions of the traffic aircraft are out of the control of the flight crew on the ownship aircraft, it is assumed that the traffic aircraft would continue to move forward at its current ground speed even when a potential collision risk is detected by the ownship aircraft. To guard against collision, a traffic predictive distance can be computed as follow: Traffic Predictive Distance=<Ownship Stop Time>*<Traffic Ground Speed>.”).
With respect to the independent claim 10, please see rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 10, with claim 1 being drawn to method, claim 10 being drawn to an invention system.
Regarding claim 11 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches all the limitations of claim 10, Liu further teaches an aircraft comprising at least one system as claimed in claim 10; (See Liu paragraph 0027 and figure 2; “FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an example aircraft ground collision avoidance system 100 on an aircraft…”).
PNG
media_image5.png
832
554
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Patent No. US20210350715A1) in view of Colekelk (Patent No. CN103455296A) and Perrie (Patent No. US20140136091B2).
Regarding claim 6 Liu in view of Colekelk teaches the method as claimed in claim 5, Liu does not teach but Perrie teaches, wherein the second data receiving step (E1C) receives position data from at least one of the data sources of a second set, said second set comprising at least one of the following data sources of the aircraft: an inertial reference system; a satellite positioning system; an odometer; a tachometer; or an optoelectronic sensor; (See Perrie paragraph 0027-0028; “a zone of the airport called runway zone, which is defined as the runway likely of being taken by the aircraft, may be determined for which there is no risk for a sensor mounted on the aircraft and relative to a satellite positioning system, in particular a GPS type system (but not exclusively), of being subjected to multipath type electromagnetic illumination. This provides positional information (generated by such a satellite positioning system) which is not perturbed by multipath phenomena and which is therefore very accurate. Starting from this position information (as well as the usual inertial data), a hybrid position with high integrity can be generated, as specified below.
Advantageously, the maximum distance of sensitivity to multipath type electromagnetic illumination is determined in function, among others, of the height from the ground of an antenna, mounted on the aircraft, receiving signals from a satellite positioning system, when the aircraft is on the ground.”).
Regarding claim 7 Liu in view of Colekelk in view of Perrie teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, Liu does not teach but Perrie teaches, wherein the data processing step (E1B) implements an operation of merging position data received from at least two different data sources of said second set for determining a consolidated absolute position of the aircraft; (See Perrie paragraph 0043; “…if the aircraft is inside said runway zone, a position information of the aircraft is used, generated by a satellite positioning system, preferably a GPS type system, as well as inertial data of the aircraft, to determine a hybrid position (GPIRS) of said aircraft, whereby said runway zone represents an integrity zone with predetermined integrity.”).
Both Liu and Perrie are in the same field of method and systems for avoidance of a collision. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Liu assisting the avoidance of a collision with an obstacle for an aircraft with Perrie one of the following data sources of the aircraft: an inertial reference system; a satellite positioning system; an odometer; a tachometer; or an optoelectronic sensor and merging position data. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Liu by including the one of the following data sources of the aircraft: an inertial reference system; a satellite positioning system; an odometer; a tachometer; or an optoelectronic sensor and merging position data to get better poison of the aircraft in relation to the obstacle. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666