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 .
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 filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Displaying an image on a screen was not directed toward a mathematical process in the mind. It’s an additional element that is not significantly more. Displaying the results of an otherwise mental process is not significantly more, per the Courts: MPEP 2106.05(f) “By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.” Also see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity … iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Below, the bolded limitations are considered to be a mental process, and the abstract idea of the claimed invention; the underlined limitations are the additional elements of data gathering and displaying results:
A computer-implemented method for guiding 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;
calculating, through triangulation, distances between the features of the airport;
determining a rationale for regulatory design requirements for the features of the airport; and
generating, using an assessment based on the distances between the features of the airport, dimensions of the aircraft model, and the rationale for the regulatory design requirements, 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, an optimized taxi route;
locating a current position of an aircraft at the airport; and
reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time by dynamically displaying on a moving map display, in a user interface on a flight deck 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.
Regarding 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the amendment changed the scope of the invention, requiring a new ground of rejection.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Examiner agrees Pschierer fails to disclose reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time.
However, new reference Zhang teaches reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time ([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 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 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.”).
Examiner agrees 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, new reference 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 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.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed toward a system with a processor and memory (i.e. a machine), an claims 15-21 are directed to a computer program product stored on memory (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claims 1-21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 8 and 15 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A computer-implemented method for guiding 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;
calculating, through triangulation, distances between the features of the airport;
determining a rationale for regulatory design requirements for the features of the airport; and
generating, using an assessment based on the distances between the features of the airport, dimensions of the aircraft model, and the rationale for the regulatory design requirements, 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, an optimized taxi route;
locating a current position of an aircraft at the airport; and
reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time by dynamically displaying on a moving map display, in a user interface on a flight deck 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.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally calculating, using triangulation, distances between features at an airport, determining rationale for regulatory design requirements for said features, and generating an assessment based on the calculated distances, regulatory rationale, and aircraft dimensions to determine areas at the airport that can and cannot accommodate the aircraft. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for guiding 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;
calculating, through triangulation, distances between the features of the airport;
determining a rationale for regulatory design requirements for the features of the airport; and
generating, using an assessment based on the distances between the features of the airport, dimensions of the aircraft model, and the rationale for the regulatory design requirements, 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, an optimized taxi route;
locating a current position of an aircraft at the airport; and
reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time by dynamically displaying on a moving map display, in a user interface on a flight deck 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.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Retrieving information from a database merely uses generic computer component (i.e. a processor) to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, displaying on a moving map display the taxi route and accommodating areas is an insignificant solution of merely displaying the results of otherwise mentally determined limitations above. These additional limitations perform otherwise mental judgements and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying the results of an otherwise mental process is not significantly more, per the Courts: MPEP 2106.05(f) “By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946.” Also see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity … iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
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, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 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 Zhang et al. (CN 111143972 A), hereinafter referred to as Pschierer, Miyoshi, and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Pschierer discloses:
A computer-implemented method for guiding 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.”), an optimized taxi route ([claim 1] “a preferential taxi route on the airport area” optimized is broadly recited in this limitation.)
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.);
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, 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 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”).
Pschierer fails to disclose reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time.
However, Zhang teaches reducing, using the optimized taxi route as compared to other taxi routes, a fuel consumption, CO2 emission, and time on taxiway, by guiding taxiing movements based upon a specific model of the aircraft, at the airport in real time ([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 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 the assessment 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 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 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 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.”).
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pschierer in view of Miyoshi and Zhang, further in view of Dees et al. (US 11254412 B2) hereinafter referred to as Dees.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Pschierer discloses providing the pilot or user with detailed information about restrictions when needed ([column 7 lines 44-46] “a pilot or other user may see more detailed information about a restriction within restrictions 324 when needed.”).
Pschierer fails to explicitly disclose the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model include areas that are non-compliant with the regulatory requirements that can be mitigated with operational procedures.
However, Dees teaches the areas of the airport that can accommodate the aircraft model include areas that are non-compliant with the regulatory requirements that can be mitigated with operational procedures ([column 1, lines 17-24] “wing spans can also reduce an ability of the aircraft to comply with span requirements of airports, buildings and/or maintenance areas (e.g., gates, runways, taxi ways, taxi lanes, maintenance facilities, etc.). To maintain span requirement compliance, some aircraft employ foldable wings in which a distal portion of a wing is rotated to reduce an effective span of the aircraft while the aircraft is on the ground.”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschierer with Dees’ teaching of the consideration of regulatory compliance requirements at airports which can be used to determine whether the wingspan of the aircraft can be accommodated by airport areas such as gates, runways, taxi ways, taxi lanes, etc. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to determine the compliance requirements and wing span of the aircraft in order to dynamically modify the wingspan of the aircraft in order to comply with requirements (Dees [column 1, lines 24-26] “As a result, aircraft with extended wing spans that employ folding can still comply with the span requirements.”).
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 either the aircraft model or the airport infrastructure to accommodate the aircraft model.
However, Dees teaches wherein the areas of the airport that cannot accommodate the aircraft model comprise areas requiring modification to either the aircraft model or the airport infrastructure to accommodate the aircraft model ([column 1, lines 17-24] “wing spans can also reduce an ability of the aircraft to comply with span requirements of airports, buildings and/or maintenance areas (e.g., gates, runways, taxi ways, taxi lanes, maintenance facilities, etc.). To maintain span requirement compliance, some aircraft employ foldable wings in which a distal portion of a wing is rotated to reduce an effective span of the aircraft while the aircraft is on the ground.”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pschierer with Dees’ teaching of the consideration of regulatory compliance requirements at airports which can be used to determine whether the wingspan of the aircraft can be accommodated by airport areas such as gates, runways, taxi ways, taxi lanes, etc. One would be motivated with reasonable expectation of success to determine the compliance requirements and wing span of the aircraft in order to dynamically modify the wingspan of the aircraft in order to comply with requirements (Dees [column 1, lines 24-26] “As a result, aircraft with extended wing spans that employ folding can still comply with the span requirements.”).
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights