DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 filed on 01/30/2026 are presently examined. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The independent claims are directed to a practical application that results in a technological improvement in the field. The 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the amendments have changed the scope of the invention, requiring a new ground of rejection using new reference Hutton (US 20040090348 A1) for the new limitations.
Regarding the independent claims, Hutton teaches transferring, using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model. ([flow chart seen in FIG. 11] the model of aircraft is determined, then it determines a parking position with available space according to the model type of the aircraft. If there is no space available, it determines if there is extra space near an available parking position that could not previously accommodate this model of aircraft. If extra space is available, the infrastructure of the passenger loading bridge is moved to make that parking space able to accommodate the larger aircraft model dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Hutton’s teaching of modifying moveable bridges to accommodate larger aircraft models at desired gates. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to move the boarding bridges in order to accommodate larger aircraft (Hutton [0036] “Advantageously, by optimizing the parking position for each different aircraft it is possible to accommodate all three 737's and the three commuter jet aircraft, without requiring any of the six passenger loading bridges to be taken out of service.”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Hutton teaches using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement for transferring, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model comprises minor infrastructure retrofitting ([flow chart seen in FIG. 11] the model of aircraft is determined, then it determines a parking position with available space according to the model type of the aircraft. If there is no space available, it determines if there is extra space near an available parking position that could not previously accommodate this model of aircraft. If extra space is available, the infrastructure of the passenger loading bridge is moved to make that parking space able to accommodate the larger aircraft model dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Hutton’s teaching of modifying moveable bridges to accommodate larger aircraft models at desired gates. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to move the boarding bridges in order to accommodate larger aircraft (Hutton [0036] “Advantageously, by optimizing the parking position for each different aircraft it is possible to accommodate all three 737's and the three commuter jet aircraft, without requiring any of the six passenger loading bridges to be taken out of service.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The positive recitation of “moving an aircraft” is not supported by Applicant’s specification. Previously worded “guiding movement” is supported by Applicant’s specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “minor infrastructure retrofitting” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minor” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschierer et al. (US 8706388 B2) in view of Miyoshi et al. (US 20060212222 A1), and Hutton (US 20040090348 A1), and Zhang et al. (CN 111143972 A), hereinafter referred to as Pschierer, Miyoshi, Hutton, and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Pschierer discloses:
A method for reducing: a time on a taxiway, a CO2 emission, and a fuel consumption, of an aircraft moving at an airport, the method comprising:
assessing compatibility of an airport infrastructure with an aircraft model using a number of processors to perform, while taxing the aircraft in real time, the following steps: retrieving information about features of an airport from an airport infrastructure database in an airport Geographic Information System ([column 7, lines 19-22] “restriction process 322 in electronic map application 302 uses operational restriction database 306 to identify restrictions 324 for aircraft type 326.” [column 7, lines 59-62] “operational restriction database 306 and/or navigation database 304 may be located on a different data processing system or in another location from data processing system 300.” GIS is defined by USGS.gov as “A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computer system that analyzes and displays geographically referenced information. It uses data that is attached to a unique location.” It is similarly defined in Webster’s Dictionary. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Pschierer’s airport spatial database(s) are a form of GIS.);
determining a rationale for regulatory design requirements for the features of the airport ([column 1, lines 32-36] “a restriction may be "taxiway U between A3 and A4 restricted to 118 foot (36 meter) maximum wingspan". Another example may be taxiway C between F and TYW B5 speed restriction maximum 20 knots applies to all aircraft above 171 foot wingspan” regulation being the wingspan width restrictions, wherein the rationale would be at least be to not collide with nearby structures seen in at least FIGs 14, 15, and 16.); and
generating, using an assessment based on the distances between the features of the airport ([column 10, lines 12-14] “bracket 806 and bracket 808 are used to create bottleneck 810 around taxiway 812. Bracket 806 and bracket 808 may be sized and spaced to scale in airport area 802.” [see FIG. 8 and also FIGs 14 and 15] in FIGs 14 and 15, see the building/structure features and also the width restrictions 1416 and 1414 on taxiway 1418.), dimensions of the aircraft model and the rationale for the regulatory design requirements ([see FIGs 14 and 15] due to the wingspan dimension of the aircraft, the taxiway is restricted to that specific aircraft model seen as 1424. [column 11, lines 12-17] “shading 1500 indicates areas prohibited for an aircraft in a fashion similar to those identified by brackets 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412, 1414, and 1416 in FIG. 14. In this example, the restrictions may be for aircraft having a wingspan greater than 60.4 meters.”),
wherein the assessment identifies areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model and any areas of the airport that cannot accommodate the aircraft model ([at least FIGs 14 and 15] the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft have brackets and/or are shaded as restricted due to the wingspan of the aircraft. The other areas do not have such wingspan restrictions.), an optimized taxi route ([claim 1] “a preferential taxi route on the airport area” optimized is broadly recited in this limitation.);
locating a current position of an aircraft at the airport ([column 10, lines 9-11] “The location and position of aircraft icon 804 may correspond to the actual position of the aircraft in the airport area.”);
dynamically displaying in real time, on a moving map display, in a user interface on a flight desk in the aircraft, a map of the airport with color coded indications that comprise: the optimized taxi route; the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model; and the areas of the airport that cannot accommodate the aircraft model ([column 10 line 66 through column 11 line 1] “brackets 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412, 1414, and 1416 are present to identify restrictions for various segments of taxiway 1418” [claim 1] “a preferential taxi route on the airport area” [column 11 lines 12-16] “shading 1500 indicates areas prohibited for an aircraft in a fashion similar to those identified by brackets 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412, 1414, and 1416 in FIG. 14. In this example, the restrictions may be for aircraft having a wingspan greater than 60.4 meters.” [column 11, lines 18-23] “FIG. 16, a diagram of a navigation chart with shading is depicted in accordance with an advantageous embodiment. As depicted, shading 1600 only covers segment 1424 in taxiway 1418. Shading is only present in this area because the type of aircraft selected has a wingspan between 52 meters and 60.4 meters.” [column 11 lines 24-25] “the aircraft may enter segments 1420 and 1422 but not segment 1424” [column 12, lines 27-29] “brackets may be color coded to indicate that the operational restriction is a prohibition of a particular maneuver rather than a caution.”).
Pschierer fails to disclose calculating, through triangulation, distances between the features of the airport.
However, Miyoshi teaches calculating, through triangulation, distances between the features of the roadway ([0004] “figure out a distribution of distances across an entire image … based on the principle of triangulation … figure out the proximate distance, as gap distance, between an edge of each of the detected plurality of three-dimensional objects … notifying the driver of the information about the figured out gap distances on the left and right sides … notification of the driver of the gap distance from the vehicle before the vehicle passes through a narrow path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Miyoshi’s teaching of triangulation of a plurality of objects around an ego vehicle and calculating a clearance gap for the vehicle to travel between objects and notifying the occupant if the gap was too narrow. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to calculate the clearance between objects and notify the occupant when a gap is too narrow for the vehicle in order to lighten the load of the concern for safety of Pschierer’s pilot for fitting in between narrow gaps between airport structures (Miyoshi [0004] “lightening a load off the driver and hence securing the safety … warning the driver … if there is the gap distance with an obstacle larger than zero and smaller than about twenty centimeters”).
Pchierer discloses the rationale for the regulatory design requirements ([see FIGs 14 and 15] due to the wingspan dimension of the aircraft, the taxiway is restricted to that specific aircraft model seen as 1424. [column 11, lines 12-17] “shading 1500 indicates areas prohibited for an aircraft in a fashion similar to those identified by brackets 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412, 1414, and 1416 in FIG. 14. In this example, the restrictions may be for aircraft having a wingspan greater than 60.4 meters.”) but fails to disclose transferring, using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model.
However, Hutton teaches transferring, using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model. ([flow chart seen in FIG. 11] the model of aircraft is determined, then it determines a parking position with available space according to the model type of the aircraft. If there is no space available, it determines if there is extra space near an available parking position that could not previously accommodate this model of aircraft. If extra space is available, the infrastructure of the passenger loading bridge is moved to make that parking space able to accommodate the larger aircraft model dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Hutton’s teaching of modifying moveable bridges to accommodate larger aircraft models at desired gates. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to move the boarding bridges in order to accommodate larger aircraft (Hutton [0036] “Advantageously, by optimizing the parking position for each different aircraft it is possible to accommodate all three 737's and the three commuter jet aircraft, without requiring any of the six passenger loading bridges to be taken out of service.”).
Pschierer fails to disclose reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, the fuel consumption, the CO2 emission, and the time on the taxiway, by moving an aircraft along the optimized taxi route.
However, Zhang teaches reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, the fuel consumption, the CO2 emission, and the time on the taxiway by moving an aircraft along the optimized taxi route. ([0175] “analyzes the differences in fuel consumption and emissions of different aircraft models … optimize taxiing paths by determining the differences in fuel consumption and emissions of different aircraft models under taxiing conditions.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Zhang’s teaching of optimizing taxi paths of different aircraft models resulting in reduced fuel use and emissions. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to optimize taxi paths based on aircraft models in order to minimize airport carbon emissions as well as fuel costs, which protects the environment (Zhang [0004] “selecting a more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly surface taxiing method can not only effectively reduce fuel consumption costs, but also has great significance for reducing airport carbon emissions and protecting the environment.”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Pschierer discloses The method of claim 2, wherein the legacy database includes at least one of: runway length; runway width ([column 1, lines 32-34] “taxiway U between A3 and A4 restricted to 118 foot (36 meter) maximum wingspan” [column 10, lines 16-18] “pilot can see that wingspan 814 is greater than width 816 of bottleneck 810. As a result, the pilot will stop and not enter bottleneck 810 for taxiway 812.”); runway declared distances for performance calculations; runway pavement strength ([column 9, lines 53-56] “ball notes 604, 606, and 608 may be "taxiway B and taxiway C between runway 07/25 and taxiway B10 not available to A380 aircraft due to weight limitations"”); airport weather; airport services; or historical airport lighting strikes.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Pschierer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein assessing compatibility assesses at least one of: runway width; runway plus runway shoulder width; runway-object separation; runway taxiway separation; taxiway width plus shoulder; taxiway-object separation; taxiway-taxiway separation; taxilane-object separation; taxilane-taxilane separation; turnpad length and width; apron parking position width and length; aircraft rescue and fire fighting; ACN-PCN (aircraft classification number – pavement classification number); or ACR-PCR (aircraft classification rating – pavement classification rating) ([column 8, lines 31-34] “object 402 may be a runway, a building, a taxiway, a barrier, or some other suitable object. Object 402 may be a permanent or a moveable object depending on a particular implementation.” [column 10 line 66 through column 11 line 1] “brackets 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412, 1414, and 1416 are present to identify restrictions for various segments of taxiway 1418” [column 1, lines 32-34] “taxiway U between A3 and A4 restricted to 118 foot (36 meter) maximum wingspan” [column 7, lines 30-34] “different types of aircraft have different wingspans in which a wingspan restriction may apply to some types, but not other types, of aircraft. For example, a Cessna 172 typically will not have wingspan restrictions. An Airbus 380 may have wingspan restrictions on various taxiways.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Pschierer fails to explicitly disclose using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement for transferring, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model comprises minor infrastructure retrofitting.
However, Hutton teaches using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement for transferring, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model comprises minor infrastructure retrofitting ([flow chart seen in FIG. 11] the model of aircraft is determined, then it determines a parking position with available space according to the model type of the aircraft. If there is no space available, it determines if there is extra space near an available parking position that could not previously accommodate this model of aircraft. If extra space is available, the infrastructure of the passenger loading bridge is moved to make that parking space able to accommodate the larger aircraft model dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Hutton’s teaching of modifying moveable bridges to accommodate larger aircraft models at desired gates. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to move the boarding bridges in order to accommodate larger aircraft (Hutton [0036] “Advantageously, by optimizing the parking position for each different aircraft it is possible to accommodate all three 737's and the three commuter jet aircraft, without requiring any of the six passenger loading bridges to be taken out of service.”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Pschierer fails to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the areas of the airport that cannot accommodate the aircraft model comprise areas requiring modification to the airport infrastructure to accommodate the aircraft model.
However, Hutton teaches using a rationale behind a regulatory requirement for transferring, a portion of the areas that cannot accommodate the aircraft model to the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model comprises minor infrastructure retrofitting ([flow chart seen in FIG. 11] the model of aircraft is determined, then it determines a parking position with available space according to the model type of the aircraft. If there is no space available, it determines if there is extra space near an available parking position that could not previously accommodate this model of aircraft. If extra space is available, the infrastructure of the passenger loading bridge is moved to make that parking space able to accommodate the larger aircraft model dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Hutton’s teaching of modifying moveable bridges to accommodate larger aircraft models at desired gates. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to move the boarding bridges in order to accommodate larger aircraft (Hutton [0036] “Advantageously, by optimizing the parking position for each different aircraft it is possible to accommodate all three 737's and the three commuter jet aircraft, without requiring any of the six passenger loading bridges to be taken out of service.”).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 21, Pschierer discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the map is displayed on the flight deck of the aircraft ([column 7 lines 10-14] “When navigation chart 318 is presented using a moving map function by electronic map application 302, electronic map application 302 may display the location of the aircraft as an icon on navigation chart 318 in display device 312.”).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschierer in view of Miyoshi, Hutton, and Zhang, further in view of Costas (US 20210125512 A1) hereinafter referred to as Costas.
Regarding claim 2, 9, and 16, Pschierer discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising retrieving manually generated airport compatibility information from a legacy database ([column 7 lines 62-64] “Electronic map application 302 also may have an update function to obtain new or current restriction information for operational restriction database 306.”).
Pschierer fails to disclose displaying on the user interface: a gate availability graph comprising available gates across multiple airports relative to wingspan and stand clearance; and an airport impact assessment graph for a number of airports in relation to a given aircraft model.
However, Costas teaches displaying on the user interface: a gate availability graph comprising available gates across multiple airports relative to wingspan and stand clearance; and an airport impact assessment graph for a number of airports in relation to a given aircraft model ([0022] “data tracking nearly all commercial flights worldwide … how aircraft are operating at airports around the world … predicting parking stand availability … tracking data from all or nearly all airports in the world … information relating to parking stands generally and which ones are occupied at a specific time and also include data on which parking stand aircraft are presently parked at the airports.” [0030] “the service receives parking stand search parameter input 303 from a user, such as origin/destination airport, airline, aircraft type, and other parameters.” [0037] “visual display using the airport apron and parking stand layout data and the parking stand rankings derived in the previous steps.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pschierer with Costas’ teaching of the consideration of determining parking stand availability at any airport in the world for different aircraft. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to show available stands to aircraft at airports in order to provide the pilot with quick information on where to park at any airport (Costas [0037] “Such a visual display gives the user a means of quickly ascertaining, for example, which apron in the airport to taxi to upon arrival. Or the user is able to easily evaluate whether there will be an available parking stand at the airport when the aircraft lands.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
