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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/985,783, with an effective filing date of 12/18/2024. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 12/18/2024, claiming priority to CON of PCT/JP2022/031522, filed 8/22/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-14.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Display control device…that transmits commands… is described in the Applicant’s disclosure on pg. 7 ¶9 as a computer executing a display control program; and
Management device that manages … is not fully described in the Applicant’s disclosure, but from the context of pg. 9 ¶2 it appears that the management device is processing circuitry (i.e., a computer).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relevant” in claim 1 (i.e., line 14), claim 13 (i.e., line 16), and claim 14 (i.e., line 17) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term renders predicted trajectories and mobile objects indefinite because it is unclear how to discern a relevant object or trajectory necessarily from an irrelevant object or trajectory.
Regarding claims 2-12, these claims are rejected because they inherit the rejection of the claim from which they depend.
Further regarding claims 6-8 (line 2), the claims recite the limitation abnormal approach and it is unclear whether this is referring to the abnormal approach period in claim 1 line 19 (a distance threshold), the abnormal approach region in claim 1 line 30 (ranges of position and time of the second mobile object in the abnormal approach period), or a new abnormal approach altogether (i.e., an approach between two mobile objects that is not normal).
The term “abnormal” in 6-8 (line 2) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “abnormal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term, as interpreted as an approach between two mobile objects that is not “normal”, renders the approach of the two mobile objects as indefinite because it is unclear how to discern the metes and bounds of a normal approach from an abnormal one.
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:
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP Pat. Pub. No. 4461182 B2), hereinafter referred to as Sato, in view of Haruta et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0083419 A1), hereinafter referred to as Haruta.
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses:
A display control device in a control system that transmits commands to a plurality of mobile objects traveling on a plurality of tracks (pg. 3 ¶1 airport control support system including an image analysis means for displaying the necessary information of the moving body currently captured by the airport surface radar on the monitoring screen of the monitoring control means and pg. 4 ¶4 sentence (s.) 4, determining the abnormal approach of a plurality of moving bodies from the aircraft sensor information as the received content), the display control device comprising processing circuitry
to acquire track structure data indicating structure of the plurality of tracks (see above regarding a airport surface radar which may provide track structure data and pg. 15 line 1 Guide guidance data such as taxiway images (+ characters, T-characters, etc.), travel arrows (↑, →, ←), stop line lights (present / absent), etc., which is construed as track structure data based on Applicant’s disclosure (see claim 12));
to acquire control information from a management device that manages the control information including positions and operation schedules of the plurality of mobile objects (pg. 3 ¶4 s. 1, creates operation plan information such as aircraft and moving body information of each moving body, which is construed as control information regarding the management of positions and schedules);
to estimate a plurality of predicted trajectories indicating movement routes of the plurality of mobile objects based on the track structure data and the control information (pg. 4 ¶1 s. 1, create an operation plan (see FIG. 13) of a past / current / predicted mobile body and pg. 5 ¶8 Means for estimating the movement predicted position area of the next sampled image data from the position of the specific flight number in the image data);
to acquire a first predicted trajectory indicating the movement route of a first mobile object as a mobile object selected as a monitoring target from among the plurality of mobile objects and a plurality of relevant predicted trajectories indicating the movement routes of a plurality of relevant mobile objects being mobile objects other than the first mobile object from the plurality of predicted trajectories (see above regarding pg. 4 ¶1 s. 1 and pg. 5 ¶8);
to estimate a second mobile object as a mobile object having an abnormal approach period in which a distance from the first mobile object is less than or equal to a predetermined reference value out of the plurality of relevant mobile objects based on the track structure data, the first predicted trajectory and the plurality of relevant predicted trajectories (see above regarding pg. 4 ¶1 s. 1 and pg. 5 ¶8); and
to make the display device display a display component for updating the first predicted trajectory, and upon receiving input information for moving the display component, to correct the first predicted trajectory so that the line indicating the first predicted trajectory does not overlap with the abnormal approach region (pg. 10 ¶10 -pg. 11 ¶2, Letter “E” discloses a route change displayed on a route change screen and requests a prompt from a user to change the operation plan according to the route setting).
Although Sato discloses pg. 9 ¶10 s.1, traffic volume survey processing unit lists all intersections including address numbers between adjacent intersections at least on the vertical axis, and displays a history of the passing time of the moving body for each intersection in the horizontal axis (time axis) direction where an intersection is construed as an abnormal approach period, it does not explicitly disclose:
a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a first coordinate axis representing positions from a start point to an end point of the first predicted trajectory by distances from the start point or the end point and a second coordinate axis representing a time, a line indicating the first predicted trajectory in the two-dimensional coordinate system, and an abnormal approach region indicating ranges of the position and the time of the second mobile object in the abnormal approach period.
However, Haruta teaches Fig. 11 below a two-dimensional axis where the first axis represents position from a start to end point and the second axis represents time. There is a line that also indicates a trajectory for each mobile object and an abnormal approach region indicating ranges of position and time where the two mobile objects have a threat of intersection. Further in [0051] s.2, Haruta teaches a safety distance is assumed from a profile relating to at least one type of kinematic quantity based on a safety model between the host vehicle 2 and the target vehicle 3 assuming that such a model follows driving policy.
PNG
media_image1.png
241
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of air traffic control, tarmac management, and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the tarmac management teachings of Sato, by incorporating the two-dimensional axes teachings of Haruta, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of safely navigating a taxiway or tarmac by avoiding collisions between mobile objects.
Claims 13-14 recite a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claims 13-14 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 .
Regarding claim 2, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the display component is a dot-like component overlapping with the line indicating the first predicted trajectory displayed on the display device and not overlapping with the abnormal approach region (see Figure 19 Below circles for dot-like components overlapping the predicted trajectory and not overlapping the abnormal approach region).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
744
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 19
Regarding claim 3, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the display component is displayed at a position of a time temporally earlier than the time range of the abnormal approach region (see circles above in Fig. 19 which are construed to be at a time temporally earlier than the time range for the abnormal approach region).
Regarding claim 6, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach occurs at an intersection of a first track and a second track intersecting with each other among the plurality of tracks between the first mobile object traveling on the first track and the second mobile object traveling on the second track (see claim 2 Fig. 19 above regarding the squares).
Regarding claim 7, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach occurs on one track among the plurality of tracks between the first mobile object and the second mobile object traveling in a same direction as each other (see claim 2 Fig. 19 above regarding the squares).
Regarding claim 8, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach occurs on one track among the plurality of tracks between the first mobile object and the second mobile object traveling in directions of approaching each other and being opposite to each other (see claim 2 Fig. 19 above regarding the squares).
Regarding claim 9, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry changes the reference value based on one or more items of information out of information regarding a visibility range in atmospheric air at the plurality of tracks acquired from the management device (see claim 1 regarding changing paths and pg.5 ¶5 provides information regardless of low visibility), information regarding a wind direction and wind speed at the plurality of tracks acquired from the management device, and information regarding size of the first mobile object acquired from the management device (see claim 1 and pg. 11 ¶5 object position specifying means for recognizing image data of a certain size or more as an aircraft).
Regarding claim 10, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, further comprising a storage device to store the track structure data (see claim 1 and pg.8 ¶4 operation plan information creation storage means).
Regarding claim 11, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, further comprising an input device to be operated by a user for inputting the input information for moving the display component (see claim 1 regarding route change screen).
Regarding claim 12, Sato, as modified by Haruta, discloses:
The display control device according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of mobile objects include an aircraft, a vehicle, or both of an aircraft and a vehicle (see claim 1 regarding mobile objects), and
the plurality of tracks include a taxiway and a runway in an airport (see claim 1 regarding taxiway images).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Panchangam (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0309934 A1) is directed towards a detection and avoidance system for beyond visual line of sight operations of urban air mobility in airspace; and
Gerdes et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,726,484 B1) is directed towards an airport ground support equipment navigation system wherein a computer can be trained to recognize obstacles and navigate ground support equipment along an airport apron, to identify obstacles along a path or route, and to determine how to control the ground support equipment to safely navigate the obstacles to reach its intended target at a designated time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665