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
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 10, 2025. Claim 1 was previously canceled. Claims 2, 3, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-23 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant's Amendments dated December 10, 2025, Examiner withdraws the previous claim's objection and 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. However, Examiner maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to show or suggest at least the following portion of amended claim 15: receive constraints data, including departure slot data" see Response at page 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Donovan teaches (“a single air traffic control strategic command center, or ATCSCC, manages flow of all airborne aircraft, such as airplanes. This center manages by exception by providing traffic management restrictions, such as with regards to departure times, routing and miles in trail separation at fixes, which are typically made in response to weather conditions and/or arrival or departure schedule demand” (para 0097) and “The surface schedule data 54 is particularly useful in predicting queue delay of departing planes. Queue delay is defined as the delay of a departing aircraft as it waits, often physically in a line with other aircraft 21, for until a turn to use the departing airspace arrives” (para 107)). Examiner notes that "This center manages by exception by providing traffic management restrictions, such as with regards to departure times, routing and miles in trail separation at fixes, which are typically made in response to weather conditions and/or arrival or departure schedule demand” and “Queue delay is defined as the delay of a departing aircraft as it waits, often physically in a line with other aircraft 21” is well-known in the art to include “receive constraints data, including departure slot data”. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Donovan fails to show or suggest optimizing "the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence," as claimed. Instead of minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft," paragraph [0032] of Donovan relates to the separation "between each departing aircraft and each arriving aircraft." Stated differently, the minimum temporal separation claimed is for "between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence." rather than between a departing and arriving aircraft as disclosed in Donovan” see Response at page 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Donovan teaches (“determine if, when the respective aircraft are airborne, based on their respective timing schedules for travel through the airspace, the minimum separation distances or times are not met between each departing aircraft and each other departing aircraft at one or more points along the trajectory of the each departing aircraft…adjusting the departure time of one or more aircraft of the plurality of departing aircraft, the adjusted departure time allowing the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met” (para 0033) and “The aircraft for analysis may include departing aircraft only” (para 0150)). Examiner notes that "the minimum separation distances or times are not met between each departing aircraft and each other departing aircraft” and “adjusting the departure time of one or more aircraft of the plurality of departing aircraft, the adjusted departure time allowing the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met” is well-known in the art to include “optimizing "the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence”. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Pub. No. 20200126433 (hereinafter, "Chauvet"; previously of record) and U.S. Pub. No. 20170352281 (hereinafter, "Donovan"; previously of record) are both directed to regulating the ground traffic of an airport and managing aircraft within a terminal airspace predefined about an airport in real time.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-9, 12-13, 15-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20200126433 (hereinafter, "Chauvet"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20170352281 (hereinafter, "Donovan"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, Chauvet discloses a computer processing system for optimising an aircraft departure sequence, the system comprising a processor (Fig. 2, #21-#23) configured to:
a. receive a predicted aircraft ready time (TOBT) (“the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)) and calculating the earliest (RTOT) for each of a plurality of aircraft (“the computer 21 is configured to determine the revised target take off time RTOT from the pushback clearance time transmitted by the departure manager” (para 0051));
c. determine a target take-off time (TTOT) for each of the plurality of aircraft based on the constraints data (“The system 2 for revising a target take off time TTOT, represented in FIG. 2, comprises a computer 21 of the aircraft 1 linked to a data memory 22 provided to store a target take off time TTOT of the aircraft 1” (para 0041));
d. determine a departure sequence based on the target take-off time (TTOT) associated with each of the plurality of aircraft (“From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)); and
However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach
b. receive constraints data, including departure slot data;
e. optimise the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
b. receive constraints data, including departure slot data (“a single air traffic control strategic command center, or ATCSCC, manages flow of all airborne aircraft, such as airplanes. This center manages by exception by providing traffic management restrictions, such as with regards to departure times, routing and miles in trail separation at fixes, which are typically made in response to weather conditions and/or arrival or departure schedule demand” (para 0097) and “The surface schedule data 54 is particularly useful in predicting queue delay of departing planes. Queue delay is defined as the delay of a departing aircraft as it waits, often physically in a line with other aircraft 21, for until a turn to use the departing airspace arrives” (para 107));
e. optimise the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence (“determine if, when the respective aircraft are airborne, based on their respective timing schedules for travel through the airspace, the minimum separation distances or times are not met between each departing aircraft and each other departing aircraft at one or more points along the trajectory of the each departing aircraft…adjusting the departure time of one or more aircraft of the plurality of departing aircraft, the adjusted departure time allowing the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met” (para 0033) and “The aircraft for analysis may include departing aircraft only” (para 0150)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to allow the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met; see Donovan at least at [0033].
Regarding claim 3, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum temporal separation between the sequential aircraft is determined based on one or more of an wake vortex category, aircraft size, a departure route, or a speed class for the sequential aircraft.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the minimum temporal separation between the sequential aircraft is determined based on one or more of an wake vortex category, aircraft size, a departure route, or a speed class for the sequential aircraft (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 4, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum temporal separation is determined based on whether a first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same type or size as a subsequent aircraft in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the size of the first and subsequent aircraft.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the minimum temporal separation is determined based on whether a first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same type or size as a subsequent aircraft in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the size of the first and subsequent aircraft (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 5, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum temporal separation is determined based on whether a first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same wake vortex category as the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the difference in wake vortex categories.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the minimum temporal separation is determined based on whether a first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same wake vortex category as the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the difference in wake vortex categories (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 6, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein the constraints data includes an aircraft taxi time (EXOT) associated with each of the plurality of aircraft.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the constraints data includes an aircraft taxi time (EXOT) associated with each of the plurality of aircraft (“Constraint data 62 includes restrictions on distances or timing between aircraft trailing one another, such as miles in trail (MIT) restrictions” (para 0111) and “Release/departure times are calculated and maintained such that departure fix constraints, for example miles in trail requirements, are maintained at the respective departure fix 17. The departure restriction data structure 102, including the adjusted release/departure times” (para 0125)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to to include delays of departure times; see Donovan at least at [0125].
Regarding claim 7, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 6. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a target start-up time (TSAT) for each of the plurality of aircraft based on the target take-off time (TTOT) and the aircraft taxi time (EXOT) (“From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)).
Regarding claim 8, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the processor is further configured to control the plurality of aircraft according to the optimised departure sequence or target take off time (TTOT) (“a system external to the aircraft, such as a departure manager, is informed of any modification of the target take off time of the aircraft once the latter has received a pushback clearance, which allows for a better management of the airport traffic and of the air traffic” (para 0014)).
Regarding claim 9, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive a plurality of different flight plans for each of the plurality of aircraft, and to determine a respective target take off time (TTOT) for each of the plurality of different flight plans (“In order to regulate the ground traffic of an airport, the aircraft are assigned, from their flight plan, a target take off time defined by a departure management tool, or a departure manager (“Departure MANager tool”) specific to the airport. Each target take off time is transmitted to the aircraft concerned via radiofrequency communications. From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)).
Regarding claim 12, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive an updated Target Off Block Time (TOBT) in response to an event message associated with one or more of the plurality of aircraft (“a system external to the aircraft, such as a departure manager, is informed of any modification of the target take off time of the aircraft once the latter has received a pushback clearance, which allows for a better management of the airport traffic and of the air traffic” (para 0014)).
Regarding claim 13, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 12. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the event message is associated with one or more of an actual landing time, an actual in block time, and the begin or end time for fuelling (“The revised target take off time takes account of the actual conditions of operation of the aircraft, by using the performance data of the aircraft, and the real conditions of movement of the aircraft over the airport domain, by using the airport data. This makes it possible to determine a target take off time that is more accurate than that estimated by the departure manager” (para 0014)).
Regarding claim 15, Chauvet discloses a method for optimising an aircraft departure sequence, the method comprising:
a. calculating, via a processor, a requested take-off time (RTOT) for each of a plurality of aircraft (“the computer 21 is configured to determine the revised target take off time RTOT from the pushback clearance time transmitted by the departure manager” (para 0051));
c. determining, via a processor, a target take-off time (TTOT) for each of the plurality of aircraft based on the constraints data (“The system 2 for revising a target take off time TTOT, represented in FIG. 2, comprises a computer 21 of the aircraft 1 linked to a data memory 22 provided to store a target take off time TTOT of the aircraft 1” (para 0041));
d. determining, via a processor, a departure sequence based on the target take-off time (TTOT) associated with each of the plurality of aircraft (“From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)); and
However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach
b. receiving, via a processor, constraints data, including departure slot data;
e. optimising, via a processor, the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
b. receiving, via a processor, constraints data, including departure slot data (“a single air traffic control strategic command center, or ATCSCC, manages flow of all airborne aircraft, such as airplanes. This center manages by exception by providing traffic management restrictions, such as with regards to departure times, routing and miles in trail separation at fixes, which are typically made in response to weather conditions and/or arrival or departure schedule demand” (para 0097) and “The surface schedule data 54 is particularly useful in predicting queue delay of departing planes. Queue delay is defined as the delay of a departing aircraft as it waits, often physically in a line with other aircraft 21, for until a turn to use the departing airspace arrives” (para 107));
e. optimising, via a processor, the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence (“determine if, when the respective aircraft are airborne, based on their respective timing schedules for travel through the airspace, the minimum separation distances or times are not met between each departing aircraft and each other departing aircraft at one or more points along the trajectory of the each departing aircraft…adjusting the departure time of one or more aircraft of the plurality of departing aircraft, the adjusted departure time allowing the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met” (para 0033) and “The aircraft for analysis may include departing aircraft only” (para 0150)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to allow the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met; see Donovan at least at [0033].
Regarding claim 16, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on one or more of an aircraft size, a departure route, or a speed class for each sequential aircraft.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on one or more of an aircraft size, a departure route, or a speed class for each sequential aircraft (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 17, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on whether the first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same type or size as the second aircraft in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the size of the first and second aircraft.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on whether the first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is the same type or size as the second aircraft in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the size of the first and second aircraft (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 18, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on whether the first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is in the same wake vortex category in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the difference in wake vortex category.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein determining the minimum temporal separation is based on whether the first aircraft in the initial departure sequence is in the same wake vortex category in the initial departure sequence and wherein the separation is defined by the difference in wake vortex category (“The arrival schedule data structure 56 is typically provided by each airline's FOC (flight operation center), for example. The exemplary data may include primary inputs of arrival fix crossing time and speed profile. Also included may be plane type and size, which is useful in determining the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence. An aircraft's wake can affect timing for subsequent movements within the airspace 10, requiring added distance and/or time be placed between movements of the aircraft”)” (para 0108)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to determine the distance required between successive arrivals or departures due to wake turbulence; see Donovan at least at [0108].
Regarding claim 19, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. Additionally, Chauvet discloses further comprising controlling the plurality of aircraft according to the optimised departure sequence or target take off time (TTOT) (“a system external to the aircraft, such as a departure manager, is informed of any modification of the target take off time of the aircraft once the latter has received a pushback clearance, which allows for a better management of the airport traffic and of the air traffic” (para 0014)).
Regarding claim 20, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. Additionally, Chauvet discloses further comprising receiving a plurality of different flight plans for each of the plurality of aircraft, and to determine a respective target take off time (TTOT) for each of the plurality of different flight plans (“In order to regulate the ground traffic of an airport, the aircraft are assigned, from their flight plan, a target take off time defined by a departure management tool, or a departure manager (“Departure MANager tool”) specific to the airport. Each target take off time is transmitted to the aircraft concerned via radiofrequency communications. From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)).
Regarding claim 21, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. Additionally, Chauvet discloses further comprising receiving an updated requested take-off time (RTOT) or target off block time (TOBT) in response to an event message associated with one or more of the plurality of aircraft (“a system external to the aircraft, such as a departure manager, is informed of any modification of the target take off time of the aircraft once the latter has received a pushback clearance, which allows for a better management of the airport traffic and of the air traffic” (para 0014)).
Regarding claim 23, Chauvet discloses a non-transitory computer program product which, when executed, causes at least one computing device to:
a. calculate a requested take-off time (RTOT) for each of a plurality of aircraft (“the computer 21 is configured to determine the revised target take off time RTOT from the pushback clearance time transmitted by the departure manager” (para 0051));
c. determine a target take-off time (TTOT) for each of the plurality of aircraft based on the constraints data (“The system 2 for revising a target take off time TTOT, represented in FIG. 2, comprises a computer 21 of the aircraft 1 linked to a data memory 22 provided to store a target take off time TTOT of the aircraft 1” (para 0041));
d. determine a departure sequence based on the target take-off time (TTOT) associated with each of the plurality of aircraft (“From this target take off time, an estimated taxiing time to the take off runway and the number of aircraft expected at the take off runway, the departure manager determines and sends to the aircraft a planned starting time from its parking area (“Target Off Block Time”)” (para 0003)); and
However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach
b. receive constraints data, including departure slot data;
e. optimise the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence.
Donovan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
b. receive constraints data, including departure slot data (“a single air traffic control strategic command center, or ATCSCC, manages flow of all airborne aircraft, such as airplanes. This center manages by exception by providing traffic management restrictions, such as with regards to departure times, routing and miles in trail separation at fixes, which are typically made in response to weather conditions and/or arrival or departure schedule demand” (para 0097) and “The surface schedule data 54 is particularly useful in predicting queue delay of departing planes. Queue delay is defined as the delay of a departing aircraft as it waits, often physically in a line with other aircraft 21, for until a turn to use the departing airspace arrives” (para 107));
e. optimise the departure sequence by determining a minimum temporal separation between sequential aircraft in the departure sequence (“determine if, when the respective aircraft are airborne, based on their respective timing schedules for travel through the airspace, the minimum separation distances or times are not met between each departing aircraft and each other departing aircraft at one or more points along the trajectory of the each departing aircraft…adjusting the departure time of one or more aircraft of the plurality of departing aircraft, the adjusted departure time allowing the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met” (para 0033) and “The aircraft for analysis may include departing aircraft only” (para 0150)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Donovan in order to allow the required minimum separation distances or times between the respective aircraft to be met; see Donovan at least at [0033].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20200126433 (hereinafter, "Chauvet"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20170352281 (hereinafter, "Donovan"; previously of record) as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and in further view of U.S. Pat. No. 8554457 (hereinafter, "White"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 10, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 9. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach wherein the flight plan data comprises any one or more of data defining a target off-block time (TOBT), data defining a runway, data defining a call sign, data defining an aircraft type, data defining an aircraft registration, data defining the origin and destination, data defining different time stamps, estimates, actual times for time stamps.
White, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the flight plan data comprises any one or more of data defining a target off-block time (TOBT), data defining a runway, data defining a call sign, data defining an aircraft type, data defining an aircraft registration, data defining the origin and destination, data defining different time stamps, estimates, actual times for time stamps (“The flight plan information may include a scheduled takeoff time (e.g., wheels up time), routing information, etc” (Col. 5, lines 24-26) and “these airport information sources may allow the SMS module 100 to instantly identify aircraft information (e.g., tail number, owner, operator, aircraft registration and specification data) in order to create a detailed and accurate departure allocation grid including operator/aircraft profiles” (Col. 18, lines 44-48)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of White in order to create a detailed and accurate departure allocation grid including operator/aircraft profiles; see White at least at (Col. 18, lines 47-48).
Regarding claim 11, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 2. However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach further comprising a user interface for providing access to accessing the data associated with each journey.
White, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
further comprising a user interface for providing access to accessing the data associated with each journey (“a user interface displaying information related to flight plan data and airport data received from an airport network, the airport data including an aircraft-holding capacity value for each of a plurality of segments of an airport area” (claim 2)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of White in order to display information related to flight plan data and airport data; see White at least at (claim 2).
Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20200126433 (hereinafter, "Chauvet"; previously of record) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20170352281 (hereinafter, "Donovan"; previously of record) as applied to claims 12 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0040064 (hereinafter, "Lee"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 14, Chauvet discloses the system of claim 12. Additionally, Chauvet discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate an updated requested take-off time (RTOT) that is …(“determining a revised take off time from the current position of the aircraft, from airport data and from aircraft performance data” (claim 1)).
However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach …based on an optimised aircraft de-icing process that is based on the aircraft type or/and based on a determined location associated with the de-icing process.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…based on an optimised aircraft de-icing process that is based on the aircraft type or/and (“generate an estimated total system time including time waiting in a queue and deicing time for a deicing system to deice an aircraft, using at least weather data for the type of snow, aircraft type, and a model relating the total system time to deice the aircraft to the time of waiting and the deicing time” (claim 1)) based on a determined location associated with the de-icing process (“wherein said deicing system includes a deicing pad having several deicing positions and a queue for aircraft waiting before a deicing position at the pad is available, and wherein said time of waiting includes time in said queue” (claim 6)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Lee in order to minimize delays and cancellation of flights by optimizing flights at the airport; see Lee at least at [para 0005].
Regarding claim 22, Chauvet discloses the method of claim 15. Additionally, Chauvet discloses further comprising calculating an updated requested take-off time (RTOT)…(“determining a revised take off time from the current position of the aircraft, from airport data and from aircraft performance data” (claim 1)).
However, Chauvet does not explicitly teach …based on an optimised aircraft de-icing process that is based on the aircraft type or/and based on a determined location associated with the de-icing process.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…based on an optimised aircraft de-icing process that is based on the aircraft type or/and (“generate an estimated total system time including time waiting in a queue and deicing time for a deicing system to deice an aircraft, using at least weather data for the type of snow, aircraft type, and a model relating the total system time to deice the aircraft to the time of waiting and the deicing time” (claim 1)) based on a determined location associated with the de-icing process (“wherein said deicing system includes a deicing pad having several deicing positions and a queue for aircraft waiting before a deicing position at the pad is available, and wherein said time of waiting includes time in said queue” (claim 6)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Chauvet with the teachings of Lee in order to minimize delays and cancellation of flights by optimizing flights at the airport; see Lee at least at [para 0005].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is 313-446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8406.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663