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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 3, 2024 is considered by the
examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed toward an abstract idea with significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward a method implemented by an electronic circuitry system which involves the steps of constructing a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip by obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip, applying filtering by following a filtering profile in the shape of a cone, and storing relevant obstacle information pertaining to the terrain elevation remaining after the filtering process (a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for constructing a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip, the method being implemented by a system comprising electronic circuitry, the method comprising:
obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip;
applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip, the filtering eliminating information on the elevation of terrain having an altitude which is lower than the filtering profile;
and storing, as relevant obstacle information, the terrain elevation information remaining after filtering.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “obtaining”, “applying”, and “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 3-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 uses the limitation of “applies one filtering profile to each end of the airport strip”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 uses the limitations of “obtains a filtering profile to be applied for a whole of the airport strip” and “combining a first filtering sub-profile defined for one end of the airport strip and a second filtering sub-profile defined for another end of the airport strip”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 uses the limitation of “obtains an overall filtering profile to be applied for all of the airport strips”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 uses the limitation of “determines or follows a trajectory of an aircraft by using a simplified representation of obstacles in the vicinity of the airport strip”, which amounts to data gathering and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 9,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed toward an electronic circuitry system which involves the steps of constructing a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip by obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip, applying filtering by following a filtering profile in the shape of a cone, and storing relevant obstacle information pertaining to the terrain elevation remaining after the filtering process (a machine). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A system in a form of electronic circuitry configured to construct a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip by:
obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip;
applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip, the filtering eliminating information on the elevation of terrain having an altitude which is lower than the filtering profile;
and storing, as relevant obstacle information, the terrain elevation information remaining after filtering.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “obtaining”, “applying”, and “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at information collected and forming a simple judgment.
Accordingly, the claim recites at one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into the practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, therefore since there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea above, there is no integration into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, as noted above, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations that amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannah, et al. (WIPO Patent No. 2017173416) in view of Montoya (European Patent No. 4187207).
Regarding claim 1, Hannah, et al. teaches: A method for constructing a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip, the method being implemented by a system comprising electronic circuitry, (Paragraph [0037]: "Exemplary […] method embodiments described herein may include dynamic aeronautical charting functionality that is compatible with modern web browsers, mobile devices and onboard aircraft displays [method containing electronic circuitry].")
the method comprising: obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip; (Paragraph [0063]: "FIG. 9 schematically depicts a multitude of obstacles along a given flight path within some bounding area around the runways of an exemplary airport, wherein the obstacles are represented as cylinders whose height represents the obstacle elevation [elevation of terrain objects (obstacles) close to airport]; " ; Paragraph [0064]: "FIG. 10 depicts a terrain-based spline fitted aviation virtual surface (AVS) applied over the bounding area and obstacle features of FIG. 9 [terrain information];")
the filtering eliminating information on the elevation of terrain having an altitude which is lower than the filtering profile; (Paragraph [00195]: "…elimination by obstacle height, the obstacle filtering algorithm discards any obstacle or terrain point that is of lower elevation [...] obstacle or terrain point [filtering eliminates information on elevation of terrain having altitude lower than filtering profile]. Such an elimination technique is represented in FIG. 29B, where obstacles O4 and O5 in are lower than obstacle O3, and where obstacle O8 is lower than obstacle O7 - meaning that obstacles O4, O5, and O8 may be discarded [example].")
and storing, as relevant obstacle information, the terrain elevation information remaining after filtering (Paragraph [00201]: "A second mode may be considered a "penetrating obstacle report" mode, meaning the processing function will generate a separate list of filtered obstacles that penetrate the critical climb gradient surface [storing and outputting information about obstacle and terrain information].").
Hannah, et al. does not teach applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip.
In a similar field of endeavor (pilot assistance for takeoff and landing), Montoya teaches: applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, (Paragraph [0137]: "…the virtual corridor [filtering profile] embodies a cylindrical cone extending upwards from a virtual landing zone corresponding to a real-world landing zone of a real-world environment [cone shape].")
an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, (Paragraph [0079]: "parameter(s) used in generating the virtual corridor corresponding to the virtual corridor representation (404) is predetermined, for example a position, a maximum height of the virtual corridor, a maximum radius at the top of a virtual corridor, and/or an angle of expansion for the virtual corridor beginning from the landing zone from which the virtual corridor extends [apex at one end of landing strip with respect to overall structure].")
a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, (Paragraph [0116]: "At the depicted angle, the SVS camera is further rotated such that the viewport extends perpendicularly to the ground of an environment as the aerial vehicle during a vertical landing process [rotation axis is perpendicular to landing region].")
the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip (Paragraph [0137]: "…the virtual corridor [filtering profile] embodies a cylindrical cone extending upwards from a virtual landing zone corresponding to a real-world landing zone of a real-world environment [cone shape]." ; Paragraph [0079]: "…virtual corridor representation (404) is predetermined, for example a position, a maximum height of the virtual corridor, a maximum radius at the top of a virtual corridor, and/or an angle of expansion for the virtual corridor beginning from the landing zone from which the virtual corridor extends [outer surface structure with predetermined angle feature with airport].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannah, et al. to include the teaching of Montoya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of identifying safe virtual corridors to assist a pilot navigate and control a vehicle (Montoya Paragraphs [0001] – [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, Hannah, et al. teaches: The method of claim 1, and, beyond the distance with respect to the end of the airport strip, the filtering profile is flat (Paragraph [00169]: "In vertical dimension, both sectors and NAVAID restriction areas may be constructed to have a flat top and a flat bottom surface - i.e. their boundaries may be defined by an altitude interval [filtering profile is flat].").
Hannah, et al. does not teach wherein, at a distance, the cone shape reaches a predetermined height corresponding to a saturation threshold.
In a similar field of endeavor (pilot assistance for takeoff and landing), Montoya teaches: wherein, at a distance, the cone shape reaches a predetermined height corresponding to a saturation threshold (Paragraph [0137]: "…the virtual corridor embodies a cylindrical cone extending upwards from a virtual landing zone corresponding to a real-world landing zone of a real-world environment [cone shape]." ; Paragraph [0079]: "…one or more parameter(s) used in generating the virtual corridor corresponding to the virtual corridor representation (404) is predetermined, for example a position, a maximum height of the virtual corridor [predetermined maximum height - saturation threshold]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannah, et al. to include the teaching of Montoya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of identifying safe virtual corridors to assist a pilot navigate and control a vehicle (Montoya Paragraphs [0001] – [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the system applies one filtering profile to each end of the airport strip (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00166]: "In some instances, NAVAID restriction areas may even be partitioned by one or more DME arcs, thereby allowing each NAVAID restriction area partition to have a different vertical interval [system applies filtering profile to different ends of airport strip regions].").
Regarding claim 4, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 3, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 3, wherein the system obtains a filtering profile to be applied for a whole of the airport strip, that is an individual filtering profile, by combining a first filtering sub-profile defined for one end of the airport strip and a second filtering sub-profile defined for another end of the airport strip, so that the information on the elevation of terrain the altitude of which is lower than the lowest-altitude filtering sub-profile is eliminated (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00171]: "…a SSDP construction takes into account obstacles located with the various portions (e.g., sectors, central disc area, ISA, ISA extension, straight segment, buffer areas, etc.) of the airport bounding area [combining and creation of filtering of entire airport strip]." ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00194]: As discussed above, the SSDP construction [creation of filtering for entire airport strip] process employs one or more obstacle filtering algorithms. In one exemplary multi-step obstacle filtering process, which is represented in FIGS. 29A-29E, an obstacle filtering algorithm processes the aforementioned distance-altitude pairs [...] separately for groups of obstacles O1 - O9 located in the straight segment or sector of a SSDP airport bounding area [individual filtering profile for particular end of airport strip] and discards any obstacle or terrain point through the multi-step process of […] elimination by minimum profile [elimination of elevation of terrain of altitude that is lowest-altitude sub-profile]").
Regarding claim 5, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 4, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 4, wherein, when at least one other airport strip is nearby, the system defines one individual filtering profile for each airport strip, and the system obtains an overall filtering profile to be applied for all of the airport strips, by combining the individual filtering profiles, so that the information on the elevation of terrain the altitude of which is lower than the lowest-altitude individual filtering profile is eliminated (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00204]: "Another example of a SSDP chart producible by an exemplary system and method embodiment is illustrated in FIG. 31. As can be observed, the airspace surrounding the Fort Smith Regional Airport (KFSM/FSM) has been divided 5 navigable sectors A through D, plus a "STRAIGHT" segment. When using this exemplary SSDP, a pilot is able to choose which of the sectors, or combinations thereof, the pilot intends to stay within [identification of nearby airport strips within airspace]" ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00208]: "but instrument approach charts for other runways of other airports may also be generated [can load different profiles for different airports]." ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00171]: "…a SSDP construction takes into account obstacles located with the various portions (e.g., sectors, central disc area, ISA, ISA extension, straight segment, buffer areas, etc.) of the airport bounding area [combining and creation of filtering of entire airport strip]." ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00194]: As discussed above, the SSDP construction [creation of filtering for entire airport strip] process employs one or more obstacle filtering algorithms. In one exemplary multi-step obstacle filtering process, which is represented in FIGS. 29A-29E, an obstacle filtering algorithm processes the aforementioned distance-altitude pairs [...] separately for groups of obstacles O1 - O9 located in the straight segment or sector of a SSDP airport bounding area [individual filtering profile for particular end of airport strip] and discards any obstacle or terrain point through the multi-step process of […] elimination by minimum profile [elimination of elevation of terrain of altitude that is lowest-altitude sub-profile]").
Regarding claim 6, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: A method for determining or for following a trajectory of an aircraft in a vicinity of an airport, wherein a system comprising electronic circuitry determines or follows a trajectory of an aircraft by using a simplified representation of obstacles in the vicinity of the airport strip which is obtained by the method of claim 1 (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [0037]: "Exemplary system and method embodiments described herein may include dynamic aeronautical charting functionality that is compatible with modern web browsers, mobile devices and onboard aircraft displays [system containing electronic circuitry]." ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00148]: "In FIG. 20, each of the alternate flight paths (25) shown is composed of an initial turn (40) to a heading that results in a straight path (45) to the obstacle (30). When the aircraft flight path reaches the position of the obstacle (30), the flight path transitions to a climbing turn with a spiral trajectory that allows the aircraft (50) to reach the sector safe altitude [following trajectory of aircraft using simplified representation of obstacles near runway].").
Regarding claim 7, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: A computer program product comprising program code instructions causing the method of claim 1 to be implemented when the instructions are executed by a processor (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00151]: "As mentioned above, the SSDP represented by FIG. 21 has an airport bounding area (100) that is centered over a combined VOR-DME NAVAID (105) [processor]." ; Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00172]: "A SSDP obstacle and terrain analysis algorithm is provided [computer program]. The algorithm generally performs several functions, including identification of various SSDP areas (e.g., ISA, ISA extension, straight segment, sector, and buffer areas) covering obstacle or terrain points being analyzed [code instructions].").
Regarding claim 8, Hannah, et al., and Montoya remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: An information storage medium storing program code instructions causing the method of claim 1 to be implemented when the instructions are read and executed by a processor (Hannah, et al. Paragraph [00117]: "…may permit comments and/or other feedback from relevant users (e.g., airport personnel, airline operators, pilots, etc.) regarding the location, elevation and/or other characteristics of obstacles, and may store such information in the TEAMDB or elsewhere [information storage medium] for subsequent retrieval and use by one or more products/functions of the system [instructions are read/executed by processor].").
Regarding claim 9, Hannah, et al. teaches: A system in a form of electronic circuitry configured to construct a simplified representation of obstacles in a vicinity of an airport strip by: (Paragraph [0037]: "Exemplary system […] embodiments described herein may include dynamic aeronautical charting functionality that is compatible with modern web browsers, mobile devices and onboard aircraft displays [system containing electronic circuitry]." ; Paragraph [0026]: "Exemplary system […] embodiments described herein may facilitate […] (e.g., the precise geographic/geospatial location of a given obstacle, […] some other object or subject of interest, or attributes of aforementioned and other objects) at or near an airport [simplified representation of obstacles near airport].")
obtaining information on an elevation of terrain in the vicinity of the airport strip; (Paragraph [0063]: "FIG. 9 schematically depicts a multitude of obstacles along a given flight path within some bounding area around the runways of an exemplary airport, wherein the obstacles are represented as cylinders whose height represents the obstacle elevation [elevation of terrain objects (obstacles) close to airport]; Paragraph [0064]: "FIG. 10 depicts a terrain-based spline fitted aviation virtual surface (AVS) applied over the bounding area and obstacle features of FIG. 9 [terrain information];" )
the filtering eliminating information on the elevation of terrain having an altitude which is lower than the filtering profile; (Paragraph [00195]: "…elimination by obstacle height, the obstacle filtering algorithm discards any obstacle or terrain point that is of lower elevation [...] obstacle or terrain point [filtering eliminates information on elevation of terrain having altitude lower than filtering profile]. Such an elimination technique is represented in FIG. 29B, where obstacles O4 and O5 in are lower than obstacle O3, and where obstacle O8 is lower than obstacle O7 - meaning that obstacles O4, O5, and O8 may be discarded [example].")
and storing, as relevant obstacle information, the terrain elevation information remaining after filtering (Paragraph [00201]: "A second mode may be considered a "penetrating obstacle report" mode, meaning the processing function will generate a separate list of filtered obstacles that penetrate the critical climb gradient surface [storing and outputting information about obstacle and terrain information].").
Hannah, et al. does not teach applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip.
In a similar field of endeavor (pilot assistance for takeoff and landing), Montoya teaches: applying filtering by following a filtering profile in a shape of a cone, (Paragraph [0137]: "…the virtual corridor [filtering profile] embodies a cylindrical cone extending upwards from a virtual landing zone corresponding to a real-world landing zone of a real-world environment [cone shape].")
an apex of which is placed at one end of the airport strip, (Paragraph [0079]: "parameter(s) used in generating the virtual corridor corresponding to the virtual corridor representation (404) is predetermined, for example a position, a maximum height of the virtual corridor, a maximum radius at the top of a virtual corridor, and/or an angle of expansion for the virtual corridor beginning from the landing zone from which the virtual corridor extends [apex at one end of landing strip with respect to overall structure].")
a rotation axis of the cone being perpendicular to the airport strip, (Paragraph [0116]: "At the depicted angle, the SVS camera is further rotated such that the viewport extends perpendicularly to the ground of an environment as the aerial vehicle during a vertical landing process [rotation axis is perpendicular to landing region].")
the cone having an outer surface forming a predetermined angle with the airport strip (Paragraph [0137]: "…the virtual corridor [filtering profile] embodies a cylindrical cone extending upwards from a virtual landing zone corresponding to a real-world landing zone of a real-world environment [cone shape]." ; Paragraph [0079]: "…virtual corridor representation (404) is predetermined, for example a position, a maximum height of the virtual corridor, a maximum radius at the top of a virtual corridor, and/or an angle of expansion for the virtual corridor beginning from the landing zone from which the virtual corridor extends [outer surface structure with predetermined angle feature with airport].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hannah, et al. to include the teaching of Montoya based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of identifying safe virtual corridors to assist a pilot navigate and control a vehicle (Montoya Paragraphs [0001] – [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kelly, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6567728) teaches the establishment of a terrain awareness system which has the ability to filter alarms with respect to an aircraft landing in a safe zone.
Block, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020116097) teaches a system which reduces nuisance alerts and warnings for a terrain awareness and warning system for an aircraft with respect to a specific geometric volume surrounding an airport.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663