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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. IN202411041000 filed on 05/27/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen et al. (System and method to assist the pilot in planning visual approach in the non-towered airfield) in view of Stone et al. (US 2007/0061055).
Regarding claim 1:
Mohideen teaches A method of providing landing assistance associated with a non-towered airport onboard an aircraft (see at least abstract) comprising:
receiving first traffic data associated with a first intruder aircraft via a common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), the first traffic data comprising a first position of the first intruder aircraft (pilot broadcasts position, altitude, etc. on CTAF, see at least Introduction p. 2);
receiving an aircraft position of the aircraft from a geospatial sensor system of the aircraft (“receive aircraft location and movement information from one or more aircraft sensors”, see at least abstract, 2. Proposed solution to the problems);
generating a landing assistance display comprising a graphical representation of a traffic pattern, the aircraft position of the aircraft, and the first position of the first intruder aircraft with respect to the traffic pattern for display on a display device onboard the aircraft based on the determination (see at least Fig. 1, 4, visual approach tab p. 6-7).
Mohideen teaches at least displaying a position of an intruder aircraft when it is on a runway, which broadly interpreted, meets the claim limitations. Mohideen further teaches a requirement for broadcasting on CTAF at a particular distance to the airfield, which suggests determining whether the first position of the first intruder aircraft is within a pre-defined distance of the non-towered airport.
Mohideen does not explicitly teach determining whether the first position of the first intruder aircraft is within a pre-defined distance of the non-towered airport or displaying position of an intruder aircraft while in the air.
Stone teaches a system and method of controlling air traffic, including determining whether an intruder aircraft is within a predefined distance of an airport and displaying data including, own aircraft position, traffic information, and aircraft within a predefined range (see at least abstract, ¶0005-0010, ¶0021-0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the non-towered aircraft landing assistance system and method as taught by Mohideen with the technique of displaying other aircraft position and determining when other aircraft are within a threshold distance to an airport as taught by Stone in order to identify potential conflicts with aircraft within a vicinity of an airport, specifically when the aircraft are in the process of takeoff and/or landing.
Regarding claim 6:
Mohideen further teaches receiving wind direction at the aircraft;
determining a downwind leg based on the wind direction (see at least introduction); and
identifying a landing runway at the non-towered airport based on the downwind leg wherein the downwind leg is parallel to the landing runway, a direction opposite a landing direction on the landing runway, and an entry point into the traffic pattern is at a 45° angle with respect to the downwind leg, and the traffic pattern is associated with the landing runway (see at least Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 7:
Mohideen teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above. Mohideen does not explicitly teach an advisory against a straight in approach.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the non-towered aircraft traffic management system and method as taught by Mohideen and Stone by advising against a straight in approach, since FAA advisories and regulations discourage such approaches, especially with respect to non-towered airports.
Regarding claims 10, 15, 16, and 19, Mohideen and Stone teach a system and computer readable medium for performing the method as in claims 1, 6, and 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-5, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen and Stone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorensen et al (Traffic Management Automation for Non-Towered Airports).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20:
Mohideen and Stone teach the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Mohideen does not explicitly teach generating a traffic in pattern alert based on determining an aircraft has entered the traffic pattern.
Sorensen teaches a system and method of automatically managing traffic in non-towered airports including detecting traffic conflicts and alerting pilots, identifying adjacent aircraft traffic, deducing an aircraft’s intent, including approach to landing, and alerting to a conflict based on the determined information (see at least p. 4, automated ATM service, 1, 2, 3, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the non-towered airport traffic management system and method as taught by Mohideen and Stone with the technique of determining when an aircraft has entered a traffic pattern and alerting nearby aircraft to potential conflicts based on the determination as taught by Sorensen in order to provide automated air traffic alerts when manned towers are not available to maintain safety while minimizing pilot attention burden.
Regarding claims 3 and 12:
Sorensen further teaches receiving CTAF voice communication comprising the first traffic data associated with the first intruder aircraft and second traffic data associated with a second intruder aircraft via the CTAF;
generating a text version of the CTAF voice communication comprising the first traffic data and the second traffic data; and
identifying the first traffic data in the text version of the CTAF communication, the first traffic data comprising the first position of the first intruder aircraft (see at least p. 5, column 2, avionics, p. 8, column 2).
Regarding claims 4 and 13:
Sorensen further teaches wherein the first traffic data comprises the first position, a first aircraft type, and a first intention of the first intruder aircraft, wherein the first intention is one of an intention to continue flying within the traffic pattern, an intention to enter the traffic pattern, and an intention to fly over the traffic pattern (see at least p. 4, trajectory estimation); and
wherein the method further comprises generating the first aircraft type and the first intention of the intruder aircraft for display on the display device (see at least p. 5, avionics).
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
Sorensen further teaches wherein the first traffic data includes an intention of the first intruder aircraft to enter the traffic pattern, and the method further comprises:
determining whether the aircraft or the intruder aircraft has a right of way to enter the traffic pattern based on the aircraft position and the first position of the first intruder aircraft with respect to the traffic pattern (see at least p. 9, column 1).
Sorensen does not explicitly teach displaying a right of way alert.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of filing of the invention, in light of Sorensen’s teaching of automating air traffic control, utilizing conventional multi-function displays to display relevant information, and determining a right of way based in aircraft intention and position information, to utilize this data to display the relevant info of a right of way alert in order to ensure all pilots in the vicinity are aware of the right of way and their place in a queue for landing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen and Stone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pilley et al. (US 2003/0083804).
Regarding claims 8 and 17:
Modified Mohideen teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Mohideen is silent as to a wrong turn alert.
Pilley teaches a system and method for control and management of an airport, including tracking at least one position of the aircraft;
determining whether the at least one position of the aircraft leads away from a desired trajectory; and
generating a wrong turn alert for display on the display device based on the determination (see at least ¶0275-0298).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the non-towered airport control system and method as taught by Mohideen and Stone with the technique of providing a wrong turn alert as taught by Pilley in order to indicate to a pilot when an erroneous maneuver, incompatible with the traffic pattern has occurred to allow the pilot to recognize and correct the issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohideen, Stone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorensen and Padera et al. (US 2022/0106037).
Regarding claims 9 and 18:
Sorensen further teaches determining whether the first position of the first intruder aircraft is within a pre-defined distance of the aircraft position of the aircraft; and
generating a prompt to implement an evasive maneuver for display on the display device based on the determination (see at least p. 4, conflict detection, alerting pilots to take evasive actions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the non-towered airport traffic control system and method as taught by Mohideen and Stone with the technique of generating a display indicating an evasive maneuver as taught by Sorensen in order to provide the expected result of alerting the pilot to a potential collision to enhance safety and avoid loss of life.
Sorensen does not explicitly teach wherein upon activation of the prompt, a flight control system (FCS) of the aircraft implements the evasive maneuver.
Padera teaches an automated collision avoidance system and method, including wherein upon activation of a prompt, a flight control system (FCS) of the aircraft implements the evasive maneuver (see at least ¶0005, ¶0045-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the non-towered airport control system and method as taught by Mohideen and Stone with the automated collision avoidance system and method as taught by Padera in order to more quickly and accurately avoid a potential collision condition when a pilot is unable, or otherwise occupied, and/or to add a redundancy to the collision mitigation provided by the alert.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619