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 . 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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 07/09/2026. Claims 1-17 and 19-26 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-17, 19-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al., US 20210197966 A1, herein referred to as Zhang, and in view of Pepitone, US 20070067093 A1, herein referred to as Pepitone.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses receiving, by a first aircraft, flight information corresponding to a second aircraft within a range of the first aircraft, wherein the flight information is transmitted from the second aircraft (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019; a first aircraft may be in communication with other aircraft, the first aircraft may receive information indicating the first and second aircraft are on a collision course, this information may be transmitted between the first and second aircraft), determining a time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft based on the flight information of the second aircraft and a maneuvering capability of the second aircraft (Paragraph 0032; a time to collision may be determined between the first and second aircraft, collision course determination may also be based on the types of aircraft in question (first and second aircraft), which can include various degrees of maneuverability), determining an adjustment for the first aircraft based on the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft (Paragraph 0034; each aircraft may select an appropriate avoidance trajectory to avoid the potential collision based on the time to collision, an avoidance trajectory is an adjustment of each aircraft), and altering the path of the first aircraft based on the adjustment (Paragraph 0034; each aircraft may travel along the avoidance trajectories in order to prevent a collision), but fails to disclose wherein the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft comprises a time until intersection of a first boundary of a first safety zone associated with the first aircraft and a second boundary of a second safety zone associated with the second aircraft, wherein the size of the first safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the first aircraft, and wherein the size of the second safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the second aircraft.
However, Pepitone, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft comprises a time until intersection of a first boundary of a first safety zone associated with the first aircraft and a second boundary of a second safety zone associated with the second aircraft, wherein the size of the first safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the first aircraft, and wherein the size of the second safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the second aircraft (abstract, Paragraphs 0025, 0038-0039; protection zones for each aircraft may be calculated based on an aircraft type, turning radius, etc. which can be considered as aircraft type and maneuvering systems; the timing for an intersection of the aircraft may be dependent on the protection zones intersecting each other). Therefore, from the teaching of Pepitone, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Zhang to include wherein the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft comprises a time until intersection of a first boundary of a first safety zone associated with the first aircraft and a second boundary of a second safety zone associated with the second aircraft, wherein the size of the first safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the first aircraft, and wherein the size of the second safety zone varies based on a type and a maneuvering system of the second aircraft, as taught/suggested by Pepitone. The motivation to do so would be to determine an accurate time for collision by taking into account the aircraft type and its associated maneuverability. For instance, planes with larger turning radii may have more difficulty executing an avoidance maneuver, and as such, would have a larger protection/safety zone compared to that of smaller, more maneuverable planes. By determining collision times based on intersections of the protection/safety zones, the collision avoidance maneuvers can be executed earlier and safer than that of visual determination or other collision avoidance systems (TCAS, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses the adjustment comprises at least one of an adjustment to an altitude of the first aircraft or an adjustment to an airspeed of the first aircraft (Paragraphs 0020, 0034; each avoidance trajectory may be utilized to adjust multiple flight aspects of each aircraft, such aspects can be altitude, speed, bearing, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses the adjustment comprises two or more of an adjustment to an airspeed of the first aircraft, an adjustment to a lateral location of the first aircraft, and an adjustment to an altitude of the first aircraft (Paragraphs 0020, 0034; adjustment of aircraft for traversing a collision avoidance trajectory can include an adjustment to the location, speed, etc. of each aircraft).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses determining a time to intersection comprises analyzing possible trajectories and flight times of the second aircraft and utilizing a fastest time that the second aircraft will intersect with the first aircraft as the time to intersection (Paragraph 0034; a simulation of possible avoidance trajectories may be performed with the best trajectory being selected, avoidance trajectories are based on time to collision, avoidance may be based on maximizing the separation distance during avoidance determination which would correspond to the quickest avoidance being performed).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Zhang further discloses determining the adjustment further comprises determining a threat level of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft and a threat level of the third aircraft with respect to the first aircraft, wherein the adjustment is further based on a comparison of the threat level of the second aircraft to the threat level of the third aircraft, such that the adjustment prioritizes moving the first aircraft further from the aircraft having a higher threat level even when doing so moves the first aircraft closer to the aircraft having a lower threat level (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0019, 0034, 0038-0039; potential collisions may be determined between a first aircraft and each of the second aircraft (first instance of “second aircraft” may be the second aircraft while the second instance may be considered the third aircraft, a potential collision may be considered a determination of a threat level and may be between the first aircraft and any of the other aircraft, a function for each aircraft may be calculated for collision avoidance maneuvers, the collision avoidance maneuver that has the highest function value may be utilized first, this can be considered as prioritizing a high threat maneuver even if other aircraft are still approaching each other (highest threat addressed first, meaning that other aircraft may still be approaching each other)).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses the flight information is transmitted directly from the second aircraft to the first aircraft (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019; a first aircraft may be in direct communication with the second and third aircrafts, each of the aircraft may transmit information between each other which can include flight paths, headings, etc., all of which can be considered as flight information).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses receiving the flight information of the second aircraft comprises receiving a line of sight radio transmission from the second aircraft to the first aircraft (Paragraphs 0027, 0036; aircraft may use visual flight rules for operations, which includes a direct line of sight to other aircraft, radio communication may be used between aircraft utilizing the visual flight rules).
Regarding claim 11, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1 and 7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1 and 7. Additionally, Zhang discloses one or more processors (Fig. 7 item 704; multiple processors may be included in the flight system).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 15-17, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 2-3, 5-6, and 8-9.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11. Zhang further discloses a dynamics model utilizing characteristics of the second aircraft it utilized to determine a time to intersection (Paragraphs 0031-0033; a kinematic algorithm may be used for determining collision timing between two aircraft).
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above claims 1.
Regarding claims 20-22, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 5, 3, and 8, respectively, and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 5, 3, and 8.
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses determining the maneuvering capability of the second aircraft based on the flight information of the second aircraft (Paragraph 0032; maneuvering capabilities of aircraft are based on the type of aircraft, this can be considered as determining the maneuvering capability based on flight information of a given aircraft (type of aircraft)).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses segmenting the flight path into a plurality of time increments, wherein determining the time to intersection comprises determining a respective time to intersection of the second aircraft with the flight path at each time increment (Paragraph 0033; time intervals may be utilized in determining if aircraft are on a collision course, these time intervals are at given steps during a given aircraft’s trajectory (dt time steps), an estimated time to collision may be based on these time intervals and associated line-of-sight distances between the aircraft), and wherein the respective time to intersection at each time increment is determined without referencing a flight path of the second aircraft (Paragraph 0033; an estimated time to intersection is based on the line-of-sight distance between the aircraft and a given velocity of each aircraft, neither of which are a reference to an explicit flight path).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses the time to intersection is determined based on at least an unknown but possible trajectory of the second aircraft within the maneuvering capability of the second aircraft (Paragraphs 0032-0034; projected paths may be determined for each aircraft to determine if a collision will occur and at what time, these projected paths may be based on potential maneuvers of each aircraft which are based on the maneuver capabilities of each aircraft, this can be considered as determining a time to collision based on possible trajectories of each aircraft).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Pepitone, and further in view of Kimchi, US 10705542 B1, herein referred to as Kimchi.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitation of claim 1. Zhang further discloses receiving a first information packet including a first vehicle identifier, wherein the first information packet is received directly from the second aircraft (Figs. 1, 6, Paragraphs 0026, 0041; each aircraft may receive information about other aircraft directly or indirectly which includes their respective identity), and receiving a second information packet including a second vehicle identifier, wherein the second information packet is received indirectly from the second aircraft (Figs. 1, 6, Paragraphs 0026, 0041; each aircraft may receive information about other aircraft directly or indirectly which includes their respective identity), but fails to disclose receiving a first information packet including a first time stamp and a first vehicle identifier, wherein the first information packet is received directly from the second aircraft, receiving a second information packet including a second time stamp and a second vehicle identifier, wherein the second information packet is received indirectly from the second aircraft, determining that the first vehicle identifier and the second vehicle identifier are the same and correspond to the second aircraft, comparing the first time stamp to the second time stamp to determine which of the first time stamp or the second time stamp is more recent, and based on the first time stamp being more recent, utilizing the first information packet as the flight information or based on the second time stamp being more recent, utilizing the second information packet as the flight information.
However, Kimchi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches receiving a first information packet including a first time stamp and a first vehicle identifier, wherein the first information packet is received directly from the second aircraft (Col. 15 lines 20-63; aircraft signals may have timestamps associated with identifiers; timestamps may be at various times where a first timestamp is at an earlier time), receiving a second information packet including a second time stamp and a second vehicle identifier, wherein the second information packet is received indirectly from the second aircraft (Col. 15 lines 20-63; aircraft signals may have timestamps associated with identifiers; timestamps may be at various times where a second timestamp is at a later time), determining that the first vehicle identifier and the second vehicle identifier are the same and correspond to the second aircraft, comparing the first time stamp to the second time stamp to determine which of the first time stamp or the second time stamp is more recent, and based on the first time stamp being more recent, utilizing the first information packet as the flight information or based on the second time stamp being more recent, utilizing the second information packet as the flight information (Col. 15 lines 20-63; aircraft signals and their associated IDs may be verified by checking signals submitted at various timepoints, each with their own timestamp; the later timestamped signal may be used strictly in verifying the first timestamp, and would result in the first timestamp being the one used for identification purposes).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kimchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Zhang and Pepitone to include receiving a first information packet including a first time stamp and a first vehicle identifier, wherein the first information packet is received directly from the second aircraft, receiving a second information packet including a second time stamp and a second vehicle identifier, wherein the second information packet is received indirectly from the second aircraft, determining that the first vehicle identifier and the second vehicle identifier are the same and correspond to the second aircraft, comparing the first time stamp to the second time stamp to determine which of the first time stamp or the second time stamp is more recent, and based on the first time stamp being more recent, utilizing the first information packet as the flight information or based on the second time stamp being more recent, utilizing the second information packet as the flight information, as taught/suggested by Kimchi. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that an aircraft ID is verified at the earliest point possible. This can allow for efficient verification of aircraft in ana airspace and can allow for evasive maneuvers to be performed at a much earlier point in time.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Pepitone, and further in view of Ali et al., US 20220351627 A1, herein referred to as Ali.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Pepitone renders obvious all the limitation of claim 1. Zhang further discloses determining an adjustment for the first aircraft based on the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft (Paragraph 0034; each aircraft may select an appropriate avoidance trajectory to avoid the potential collision based on the time to collision, an avoidance trajectory is an adjustment of each aircraft), but fails to disclose wherein the determining the adjustment is based on a cost function, the cost function considering a plurality of factors comprising the time to intersection, airspace restrictions, and one or more selected from the group comprising air-based obstacles, ground-based obstacles, and weather, wherein the adjustment is a lowest cost maneuver given each of the plurality of factors considered by the cost function. However, Ali, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the determining the adjustment is based on a cost function, the cost function considering a plurality of factors comprising the time to intersection, airspace restrictions, and one or more selected from the group comprising air-based obstacles, ground-based obstacles, and weather, wherein the adjustment is a lowest cost maneuver given each of the plurality of factors considered by the cost function (Paragraphs 0053, 0073; costs may be determined for collision avoidance maneuvers; these costs may be based on regulatory data (airspace restrictions, see 0053), weather data, and airspace traffic (air-based obstacles)). Therefore, from the teaching of Ali, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the flight system of Zhang and Pepitone to include wherein the determining the adjustment is based on a cost function, the cost function considering a plurality of factors comprising the time to intersection, airspace restrictions, and one or more selected from the group comprising air-based obstacles, ground-based obstacles, and weather, wherein the adjustment is a lowest cost maneuver given each of the plurality of factors considered by the cost function, as taught/suggested by Ali. The motivation to do so would be to utilize different data to determine associated costs with avoidance maneuvers and selecting the lowest cost. This can increase the safety margin for performing these avoidance maneuvers and can lead to a safer airspace.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, US 20210197966 A1 by Zhang and US 20070067093 A1 by Pepitone, teaches receiving, by the first aircraft, flight information corresponding to a third aircraft within the range of the first aircraft (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0019; a first aircraft may be in communication with other aircraft, including second, third, etc. aircraft, the first aircraft may receive information indicating the first and other aircraft (can include a third aircraft) are on a collision course, this information may be transmitted between the first and other aircraft) and determining a time to intersection of the third aircraft with respect to the first aircraft based on the flight information of the third aircraft and a maneuvering capability of the third aircraft (Paragraph 0032; a time to collision may be determined between the first and second aircraft, collision course determination may also be based on the types of aircraft in question (first and second aircraft), which can include various degrees of maneuverability), but fails to disclose wherein the adjustment is further determined based on a ratio of the time to intersection of the second aircraft with respect to the first aircraft to the time to intersection of the third aircraft with respect to the first aircraft. This feature is novel in that it allows for the flight system to compare intersection times between aircraft through a ratio and then determine an avoidance maneuver based on the determined ration. The utilization of a ratio is advantageous because it may allow for better insight into collision trajectories between each aircraft, resulting in better avoidance maneuvers.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner has completed a thorough search and has not found a piece of prior art, either alone or in combination with other prior art, that discloses, teaches, suggests, or renders obvious the claim limitations. The closest prior art combination, US 20210197966 A1 by Zhang and US 20070067093 by Pepitone, teaches wherein the size of the first safety zone varies based on a type and maneuvering system of the first aircraft, and wherein the size of the second safety zone varies based on a type and maneuvering system of the second aircraft (see claim 1 rationale), but fails to teach wherein the size of the first safety zone varies further based on weather, a size, and a communication system of the first aircraft, and wherein the size of the second safety zone varies further based on weather, a size, and a communication system of the second aircraft. These features are novel in that the safety zones of each aircraft are based on a multitude of specific factors. By varying the safety zone based on these factors, the collision avoidance maneuvers may be more accurately executed as these factors affect how well a given aircraft is able to respond to a potential collision.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
