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 Response to Non-Final Action filed April 8, 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 16-18, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 previously stated for the claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 16-18, and all rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 stated for the original claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 16-18 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 16-18 see Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 8, 2026, with respect to the section titled Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that was previously stated for claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 16-18, of the Non-Final Action filed December 16, 2025, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed April 8, 2026, with respect to the section titled Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection that was previously stated for claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12, of the Non-Final Action filed December 16, 2025, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
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 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doose et al. (US 20040006412; hereinafter Doose, of record in IDS), in view of Khatwa (US 20230060551, of record in IDS), further in view of Finn et al. (US 20090150013; hereinafter Finn), and further in view of Matessa et al. (US 20250166514; hereinafter Matessa).
Regarding Claim 16,
Doose teaches,
A system for displaying a taxi path for an aircraft at an airport, (Doose: Abstract) said system comprising:
a display configured to display the position of the aircraft at the airport; (Doose: Paragraph [0028])
...
an input to provide a destination of the aircraft to a location at the airport, wherein the destination is on the apron of the airport; (Doose: Paragraph [0028])
a processor for calculating a taxi path from the current location of the aircraft to the destination; (Doose: Paragraph [0057]; Central Processing Unit) and
wherein the display displays the taxi path to the destination; (Doose: Paragraph [0052]-[0053], FIG. 12-15)
...
Doose does not teach a sensor for specifically detecting the position of the aircraft or displaying hold stops along a taxi path on a display.
However in the same field of endeavor, Khatwa teaches
...
a first sensor for detecting the location of the aircraft on an apron of the airport; (Khatwa: Paragraph [0061] Global Positioning System (GPS) 534)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Doose with the sensor system of Khatwa for the benefit of improving situational awareness concerning operations around an airport that are sensitive to operational context. (Khatwa: Paragraph [0019])
Doose, in view of Khatwa, does not teach sensors for detecting hold stop locations along a taxi path.
However in the same field of endeavor, Finn teaches
...
a second sensor for determining locations of ground vehicles and one or more hold stops, (Finn: Paragraph [0047]; “Airport campus tags 402 may comprise special apparatus operator information appropriate to an associated location. Thus runway and taxiway threshold array 416 and 418 tags 402 may provide notification information to be conveyed to a pilot, vehicle driver or airport traffic controller, for example informing a pilot that he must stop and request clearance before crossing or proceeding beyond a position correlated with a read linear array 416 or 418 tag 402.”) wherein the second sensor is a proximity detector configured to interface with RFid tags embedded in the one or more hold stops and placed on the ground vehicles; (Finn: Paragraph [0038], FIG. 4; “Readers 302 may be installed in recessed housings, so that they can "scan" aircraft 305 and vehicles 307 and read their tags 304 but are not vulnerable to being "run over" by aircraft tires, though other installation configurations may also be practiced.”)
wherein the display indicates a location of the one or more hold stops and the ground vehicles as determined by the second sensor; (Finn: Paragraph [0054]-[0056])
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doose, in view of Khatwa, with the sensors of Finn for the benefit of efficiently, continuously and reliably tracking aircraft positions relative to other aircraft and vehicles throughout a comprehensive airport campus of runways, taxi ways and tarmacs. (Finn: Paragraph [0006])
Doose, in view of Khatwa, and further in view of Finn, does not teach displaying the exact size and orientation of the aircraft on the display.
However in the same field of endeavor, Matessa teaches
...
wherein the display further indicates a size and orientation of aircraft on a taxiway or the runway to indicate a potential safety hazard. (Matessa: Paragraph [0060]-[0061], FIG. 4a and 4b; “Further, the navigation path 110 may include impassable terrain 408 proximate to runways or taxiways, or obstacles 410 in the runways or taxiways. For example, while airport databases stored to memory 308 may indicate the locations of impassable terrain 408, obstacles 410 may include objects such as ground vehicles that, not being fixtures whose locations and/or dimensions are known to the airport database, the strategic display 100 may not account for”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doose, in view of Khatwa, and further in view of Finn, with the indicators and aircraft orientation display of Matessa, for the benefit of providing low-workload enhanced situational awareness for pilots and/or operators engaged in ground taxi operations, e.g., from gate to takeoff or from touchdown to gate. (Matessa: Paragraph [0034])
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doose, in view of Khatwa, further in view of Finn, and further in view of Matessa, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Butler et al. (US 20080062011; hereinafter Butler, already of record).
Regarding Claim 17,
Doose, in view of Khatwa, further in view of Finn and further in view of Matessa, teaches
The system of claim 16,...
Doose, in view of Khatwa, further in view of Finn and further in view of Matessa, does not teach a system for providing a virtual hold stop to an aircraft.
However in the same field of endeavor, Butler teaches
...wherein the system adjusts the one or more hold stop locations determined by the second sensor, to provide for a virtual hold stop location. (Butler: Paragraph [0084]-[0085], FIG. 5; “It will be appreciated that various ways of carrying out the alert for the pilot may be provided, such as, for example, by way of a display, as illustrated in FIG. 5 where there is shown an object 27 which would cause a warning alert,...”)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doose, in view of Khatwa, further in view of Finn, and further in view of Matessa, with the virtual hold stop system of Butler for the benefit of enhancing collision avoidance capabilities of aircraft on the ground. (Butler: Paragraph [0011]-[0012])
Regarding Claim 18,
Doose, in view of Khatwa, further in view of Finn, further in view of Matessa, and further in view of Butler, teaches
The system of claim 17, wherein the virtual; hold stop location is set based on aircraft dimensions of aircraft in proximity to the aircraft. (Butler: Paragraph [0084], [0086], FIG. 7)
The motivation to combine Doose, Khatwa, Finn, Matessa, and Butler, is the same as stated for Claim 17 above.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The amendments made to Independent claim 1 place this application in condition for allowance.
The closest prior art of record includes previously applied prior art Doose et al. (US 20040006412; hereinafter Doose, of record in IDS), in view of Khatwa (US 20230060551, of record in IDS), further in view of Finn et al. (US 20090150013; hereinafter Finn), further in view of Glover et al. (US 20130201037; hereinafter Glover, already of record), further in view of Matessa et al. (US 20250166514; hereinafter Matessa), further in view of Stone et al. (US 20080109163; hereinafter Stone, already of record), further in view of Butler et al. (US 20080062011; hereinafter Butler, already of recprd), and further in view of Canu-Chiesa et al. (US 20060265109; hereinafter Canu, already of record). Doose generally discloses a method and system for displaying a cleared taxi route for an aircraft to a pilot by highlighting the cleared taxiways on a map. Khatwa generally discloses a system for providing alerts to a crew of an aircraft based on the current position of the aircraft and the route of the aircraft around the airport. Finn generally discloses an airport ground traffic management system which monitors the position of ground traffic in order to prevent collisions. Glover generally discloses a system for displaying air traffic control ground clearance to an aircraft crew along with highlighting hold short locations for the aircraft. Matessa generally a system for providing navigation instructions to the crew of an aircraft along its cleared taxi path on an interactive display while also utilizing an airport database in order to display information about runways, taxiways, hazards, gates, and other airport features. Stone generally discloses a system for displaying airport runway guidance and a runway alert system for guiding an aircraft to a desired runway while mitigating collisions with other aircraft. Butler generally discloses an aircraft collision avoidance warning system for aircraft that are maneuvering on the ground. Canu generally discloses an aircraft cockpit display device for displaying information about traffic surrounding an aircraft that is traveling on the ground.
While the aforementioned references disclose elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12, are allowable due to their dependencies on allowable claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights