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
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been canceled.
Claim 21 is new.
Response to Amendment
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s replacement sheet overcomes the drawing objections. The drawing objections are withdrawn.
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification overcomes the objection of record. The objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Objections to the Claim(s): Applicant’s amended claims overcome the objection of record. The claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim interpretations Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f): Applicant’s amended claims do not overcome the claim interpretation under 112(f). The 112(f) interpretation is maintained as detailed below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amended claims overcome the rejections of record. The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant’s amended claims do not overcome the rejections of record. The 101 rejection is maintained as detailed below.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Claims 1 and 20 have been amended to change the scope of the claimed invention. Specifically, limitations pertaining to “displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories” which changes the scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 20, and 21 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.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 is: Such claim limitation is: collision avoidance system…configured and arranged to determine the aircraft's risk of collision at a plurality of candidate positions by: determining [[a]] the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will ccupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories in claim 20.
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. Specifically, collision avoidance system may be a computer (see at least paragraph [0134] from Applicant’s specification as filed).
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 § 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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining [[an]] the aircraft's risk of collision during flight at a plurality of candidate
determining the plurality of candidate
an initial position of the aircraft;
an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a ;
determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each ;
determining a presence of any collision hazards at each ;
determining the aircraft's risk of collision at
the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy the candidate position; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at the candidate position;
displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and
directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories.
Claim 20. (Currently Amended) A collision avoidance system for an aircraft, configured and arranged to determine
determining [[a]] the plurality of candidate
an initial position of the aircraft;
an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and
a ;
determining a probability that the aircraft will ;
determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate ;
determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate
the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate
the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate ;
displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and
directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories.
21. (New) A method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining an aircraft's risk of collision during flight at one or more candidate positions, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on:
an initial position of the aircraft;
an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and
a maneuverability of the aircraft;
determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions;
determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and
determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on:
the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at a time of presence; and
the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at the time of presence;
wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution;
wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on:
a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and
an initial speed of the aircraft; and
wherein the method further comprises: associating a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories, respectively, with the plurality of candidate positions; and
directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories.
Claims 1, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, a collision avoidance system for an aircraft, and a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft respectively.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites methods of collision avoidance for an aircraft including at least one step and a collision avoidance system for an aircraft. The claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (see at least MPEP 2106.03).
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mathematical concepts
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” (see at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), “certain methods of organizing human activity” (see at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)), and/or “mathematical concepts” (see at least MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Claims 1, 20, and 21 recite limitations pertaining to “determining [[a]] the plurality of candidate determining a probability that the aircraft will determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate collision avoidance system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “collision avoidance system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer (collision avoidance system) does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 1, 20, and 21 recite limitations pertaining to “directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation that covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “collision avoidance system”, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the collision avoidance system (computer) the claim encompasses a human pilot receiving information about an aircraft’s environment and/or projected trajectories and directing the aircraft in accordance with a selected trajectory from the projected trajectories. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interaction between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution; wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein the method further comprises: associating a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories, respectively, with the plurality of candidate positions” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and/or mathematical manipulation of a data by a general purpose computer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 20 recite additional elements or steps of displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions. The displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the risk of collision evaluation result from the determining step(s)), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “collision avoidance system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment, i.e. a computer. The collision avoidance system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (see at least MPEP 2106.05).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the displaying step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Further, more positively reciting an automatic control step or control through autopilot of the aircraft in response to the determined risk of collision consistent at least with [0126] from the Applicant’s specification may help to overcome the rejection.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception such as the introduction of mathematical concepts in claims 3 and 4 and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as mere post solution displaying/outputting in at least claim 11 similar to that detailed above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 20, and 21.
Therefore, claims 2-12 and 14-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiefele et al. (US6201482B1) in view of Lepere et al. (US2003/0107499A1) in further view of Gariel et al. (US20221/0350716A1), hereinafter Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Schiefele teaches a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining [[an]]the aircraft's risk of collision during flight at a plurality of candidate positions, the method comprising: determining the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period (see at least Col.1 lines 49-53 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities)”), based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft (see at least Col.3 lines 9-16 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft, from the flying speed and the speed over the ground, and from the speed of changing course and the speed of ascent/descent, wherein a multiplicity of calculations is made with variations of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent.”); each of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself”); determining a presence of any collision hazards at each of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated...for other aircraft;” and Col.4 lines 51-55 “The only aircraft 3, 4, 5 which are included in the calculations are those which are at a distance from the aircraft concerned 1 for which a hazard cannot be completely ruled out taking into account the speed of approach to the aircraft concerned.” also see at least Col.4 line 62-Col.5 line 9); and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy the candidate position; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at the candidate position (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that candidate position is encompassed by at least space element, candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period is encompassed at least by (occupancy probabilities) and/or calculating probabilities, initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by respective position, an initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by course and course over the ground of the aircraft, a maneuverability of the aircraft is encompassed at least by the speed of changing course, the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned, and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of other objects.
Schiefele suggests displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory associated to the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.2 lines 17-21 “an evasive route for the aircraft concerned can be calculated and displayed if for at least one space element the probability of simultaneous occupancy by the particular object and by at least one other object exceeds a predetermined value.” and Col.8 lines 13-23 “At 60, collision probabilities KW are calculated, namely probabilities with which at least one other aircraft or another object is situated simultaneously in a space element RE in each case. Thereafter, the programme branches at 61, depending on whether one of the calculated collision probabilities is greater than a predetermined value KWS. If this is the case, an evasive route AR is determined at 62, and is output at 63, optionally together with a display of the conflict area RE (AW.F, AW.H),” also see at least Fig.9) and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least Col.2 lines 27-31 “selecting and displaying the calculated evasive route which gives a probability of a hazardous encounter below a predetermined threshold value at the smallest excursion or by converting it into a control command” and Col.7 lines 46-55 “FIG. 7 illustrates the same flying situation of an aircraft 1 on its approach to an aviation obstacle 41, wherein at time tl+n.1\t a probability exists, which cannot be neglected, that the aircraft 2 is situated together with the building complex in space elements 42, 43, 44. However, the buildings are lower than the elevation of the ground shown in FIG. 6, so that the recommendation to the pilot of the aircraft 1 may be that he should maintain his current flying height in each case.”).
Examiner interprets that displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory is suggested at least by evasive route AR is determined at 62, and is output at 63, optionally together with a display of the conflict area and/or displaying the calculated evasive route which gives a probability of a hazardous encounter.
Schiefele does not explicitly teach displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions.
Lepere suggests displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least [0104]-[0108] “A priori, it is advantageous for the display to indicate all or some of the following information: a) situation of the airplane (Background Display for Situation Awareness); this involves showing the relief of the surrounding terrain, the predicted path of the aircraft and its height relative to the relief b) alert areas (Caution and Warning Alert areas), which correspond to the geographical areas giving rise to the current alert(s), if one exists...d) paths allowing the relief to be avoided.” also see at least Fig.5, Fig.5a, and [0116]).
Examiner interprets that risk of collision is suggested at least by alert areas and plurality of trajectories is encompassed at least by paths allowing the relief to be avoided.
Gariel suggests directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least [0101] “The pilot may interact with the pilot controls 222 to perform the recommended resolution maneuver...the pilot may interact with other interfaces to perform the recommended resolution maneuver. For example, the pilot may interact with dedicated buttons and/or a touchscreen to perform the resolution maneuver. In one specific example, the pilot may interact with a button/touchscreen to select/accept one or more recommended resolution maneuvers. In another specific example, the pilot may interact with a button/touchscreen to command the autopilot to automatically perform the recommended resolution maneuver.” also see at least [0147]).
Examiner interprets that trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories is encompassed at least by recommended resolution maneuver.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining the aircraft's risk of collision during flight at a plurality of candidate positions, the method comprising: determining the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy the candidate position; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at the candidate position, and the suggested teaching of Schiefele of displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory associated to the plurality of candidate positions and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with the suggested teaching of displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions found in Lepere and the suggested teaching of directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining the aircraft's risk of collision during flight at a plurality of candidate positions, the method comprising: determining the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy the candidate position; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at the candidate position; displaying the risk of collision at each of a plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Col.1 lines 40-47 and Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on the initial trajectory of the aircraft (see at least Col.3 lines 9-12 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft,”).
However, Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on the initial trajectory of the aircraft (see at least [0036] “locations within the predicted trajectories may be associated with a probability that the aircraft will be located in the location.”).
Examiner interprets that candidate position is encompassed at least by the location and initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by predicted trajectories.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on the initial trajectory of the aircraft with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Gariel with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele suggests wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory (see at least Col.3 lines 9-12 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft,”); and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position (see at least Col.6 lines 60-62 “From the distribution of probabilities over the space elements 33, it can be recognised that the aircraft 1 is travelling in a slightly descending flight.”).
Gariel suggests wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory (see at least [0036] “locations within the predicted trajectories may be associated with a probability that the aircraft will be located in the location.”); and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position (see at least [0074] “Trajectories may be predicted using techniques that produce associated probability values. For example, predicted trajectory values (e.g., location values) can include associated probability values. The probability values may indicate the probability that the predicted trajectory value (e.g., location) may occur. For example, a predicted trajectory volume may include different probability values for different locations in the predicted volume. As another example, when multiple trajectories for an aircraft are predicted, each predicted trajectory may be associated with a different probability value. In some implementations, the predicted trajectories may be calculated according to various predicted trajectory weightings, such as applying heavier weightings to a straight line path and lighter weightings to other maneuvers.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory; and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position with the suggested teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory; and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining a probability of one or more collision hazards being present at the candidate position based on positional data for one or more collision hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-46 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the probability of any collision hazard being present at the candidate position (see at least Col.11 lines 4-7 “In order to be able to determine the risk of a collision, the occupancy probability of all the objects in question then has to be determined for each space element L.”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards are encompassed at least by other aircraft and one or more collision hazards being present at the candidate position are encompassed at least by occupancy probabilities are calculated for other aircraft.
Regarding claim 6, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.” and Col.3 lines 9-12 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft,”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards and/or dynamic collision hazards is encompassed at least by other aircraft, determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position is encompassed at least by occupancy probabilities, and based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards are encompassed at least by data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position and course.
Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards (see at least [0086] “The avoidance system 200-1 includes a conflict determination module 246 that determines whether there are conflicts with one or more other aircraft. For example, the conflict determination module 246 may determine one or more conflict zones based on the current location and/or predicted trajectory of other aircraft and the ownship. In some implementations, the conflict determination module 246 may determine that a conflict zone is located at the intersection (e.g., overlap) between the ownship trajectory and a predicted trajectory of another aircraft.”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards and/or dynamic collision hazards is encompassed at least by other aircraft, determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards is encompassed at least by determine one or more conflict zones, positional data is encompassed at least by current location, and trajectory data is encompassed at least by predicted trajectory of other aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 6 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”) based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position (see at least Col.1 lines 56-59 “the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that expected time of presence at each candidate position is encompassed at least by plurality of selected times and determining the aircraft's risk of collision is encompassed at least by collision probabilities.
Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards (see at least [0073] “A projected/predicted trajectory may refer to a calculated volume of space, or multiple volumes of space, that may include an aircraft at a future time. Put another way, a projected/predicted trajectory may refer to an extrapolated trajectory of an aircraft. The volume of space included in a predicted trajectory may be represented using a variety of geometries, depending on the manner in which the predicted trajectory is calculated. Example volumes may include cones, pyramids, prisms, ellipsoids, irregular volumes, and/or other geometries. The different possible locations of the aircraft in the predicted trajectory may be defined by a three-dimensional location in space, such as a latitude, longitude, and altitude (e.g., in meters). Each of the possible locations in the predicted trajectory may also be associated with additional data, such as a time (e.g., a target time of arrival at the location) and/or a speed at the location (e.g., an airspeed in knots or kilometers per hour).”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position (see at least [0115] “In some implementations, such as in FIG. 3B, the avoidance GUI may illustrate intruder aircraft information associated with a rendered zone. Example intruder aircraft information may include a graphical representation of the intruder trajectory. For example, FIG. 3B illustrates the intruder trajectory using an arrow and broken line. Additional example intruder aircraft information may include an available intruder tail number (e.g., N123AB), an aircraft type, an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B), a relative altitude (e.g., +300 feet), and an arrow that indicates whether the intruder is climbing or descending (e.g., a down arrow in FIG. 3B indicates descent).”).
Examiner interprets that determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position is encompassed at least by such as a time (e.g., a target time of arrival at the location) and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position is encompassed at least by an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on an initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.3 lines 9-16 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft, from the flying speed and the speed over the ground, and from the speed of changing course and the speed of ascent/descent, wherein a multiplicity of calculations is made with variations of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent.”).
Examiner interprets that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is encompassed at least by occupancy probabilities and based on an initial speed of the aircraft is encompassed at least by the flying speed and/or the speed over the ground.
Regarding claim 11, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein the method comprises providing a risk indicator based on the aircraft's determined risk of collision at each candidate position (see at least Col.6 lines 10-17 “In order to illustrate different values of occupancy probabilities, the space elements illustrated in FIGS. 3 to 7 have been cross-hatched at different densities, wherein a dense cross-hatching indicates a high occupancy probability. Space elements which are not cross-hatched have an occupancy probability which is so low that they are not taken into consideration for the output of warning indications and in the calculation of evasive routes.”).
Examiner interprets that risk indicator is encompassed at least by cross-hatching.
Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein the method comprises providing a risk indicator based on the aircraft's determined risk of collision at each candidate position (see at least [0127] “In some implementations, a rendered zone may include one or more renderings (e.g., effects, colors, etc.) that indicate a level of risk. For example, a transparent rendered zone or a white color may indicate no risk factor. In this example, a yellow/amber color may indicate a medium level of risk. Furthermore, in this example, a red color may indicate that a maneuver is required. Additionally, in this example, a blinking red color may indicate that a maneuver is immediately required.”).
Examiner interprets that risk indicator is encompassed at least by indicate a level of risk.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method comprises providing a risk indicator based on the aircraft's determined risk of collision at each candidate position with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method comprises providing a risk indicator based on the aircraft's determined risk of collision at each candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 14, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim [13]] 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches comprising determining the aircraft's risk of collision within a region based on the risk of collision for a plurality of candidate positions within the region (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.” also see at least Col.6 line 66 – Col.7 line 18, Fig. 5a, and Fig. 5b).
Examiner interprets that aircraft's risk of collision within a region based on the risk of collision for a plurality of candidate positions within the region is encompassed at least by the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects and/or collision probabilities.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 3 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining a probability of one or more collision hazards being present at the candidate position based on positional data for one or more collision hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-46 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the probability of any collision hazard being present at the candidate position (see at least Col.11 lines 4-7 “In order to be able to determine the risk of a collision, the occupancy probability of all the objects in question then has to be determined for each space element L.”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards are encompassed at least by other aircraft and one or more collision hazards being present at the candidate position are encompassed at least by occupancy probabilities are calculated for other aircraft.
Regarding claim 16, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 3 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards and/or dynamic collision hazards is encompassed at least by other aircraft, determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse each candidate position is encompassed at least by occupancy probabilities, and based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards are encompassed at least by data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position and course.
Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards (see at least [0086] “The avoidance system 200-1 includes a conflict determination module 246 that determines whether there are conflicts with one or more other aircraft. For example, the conflict determination module 246 may determine one or more conflict zones based on the current location and/or predicted trajectory of other aircraft and the ownship. In some implementations, the conflict determination module 246 may determine that a conflict zone is located at the intersection (e.g., overlap) between the ownship trajectory and a predicted trajectory of another aircraft.”).
Examiner interprets that collision hazards and/or dynamic collision hazards is encompassed at least by other aircraft, determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse each candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards is encompassed at least by determine one or more conflict zones, positional data is encompassed at least by current location, and trajectory data is encompassed at least by predicted trajectory of other aircraft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a wherein determining the presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position comprises: determining whether any dynamic collision hazards are expected to traverse the candidate position based on positional data for one or more dynamic hazards and trajectory data for the one or more dynamic hazards with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 17, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 16 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”) based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position (see at least Col.1 lines 56-59 “the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that expected time of presence at the candidate position is encompassed at least by plurality of selected times and determining the aircraft's risk of collision is encompassed at least by collision probabilities.
Gariel more explicitly teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards (see at least [0073] “A projected/predicted trajectory may refer to a calculated volume of space, or multiple volumes of space, that may include an aircraft at a future time. Put another way, a projected/predicted trajectory may refer to an extrapolated trajectory of an aircraft. The volume of space included in a predicted trajectory may be represented using a variety of geometries, depending on the manner in which the predicted trajectory is calculated. Example volumes may include cones, pyramids, prisms, ellipsoids, irregular volumes, and/or other geometries. The different possible locations of the aircraft in the predicted trajectory may be defined by a three-dimensional location in space, such as a latitude, longitude, and altitude (e.g., in meters). Each of the possible locations in the predicted trajectory may also be associated with additional data, such as a time (e.g., a target time of arrival at the location) and/or a speed at the location (e.g., an airspeed in knots or kilometers per hour).”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position (see at least [0115] “In some implementations, such as in FIG. 3B, the avoidance GUI may illustrate intruder aircraft information associated with a rendered zone. Example intruder aircraft information may include a graphical representation of the intruder trajectory. For example, FIG. 3B illustrates the intruder trajectory using an arrow and broken line. Additional example intruder aircraft information may include an available intruder tail number (e.g., N123AB), an aircraft type, an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B), a relative altitude (e.g., +300 feet), and an arrow that indicates whether the intruder is climbing or descending (e.g., a down arrow in FIG. 3B indicates descent).”).
Examiner interprets that determining an expected time of presence at the candidate position is encompassed at least by such as a time (e.g., a target time of arrival at the location) and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at the candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position is encompassed at least by an approximate time of arrival at the conflict zone (e.g., 45 seconds in FIG. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision atGariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence at each candidate position for any dynamic collision hazards based on the positional data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards and the trajectory data for the one or more dynamic collision hazards; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of any dynamic collision hazards expected to occupy the candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 19, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 2 as detailed above.
Schiefele suggests wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory (see at least Col.3 lines 9-12 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft,”); and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position (see at least Col.6 lines 60-62 “From the distribution of probabilities over the space elements 33, it can be recognised that the aircraft 1 is travelling in a slightly descending flight.”).
Gariel suggests wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory (see at least [0036] “locations within the predicted trajectories may be associated with a probability that the aircraft will be located in the location.”); and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position (see at least [0074] “Trajectories may be predicted using techniques that produce associated probability values. For example, predicted trajectory values (e.g., location values) can include associated probability values. The probability values may indicate the probability that the predicted trajectory value (e.g., location) may occur. For example, a predicted trajectory volume may include different probability values for different locations in the predicted volume. As another example, when multiple trajectories for an aircraft are predicted, each predicted trajectory may be associated with a different probability value. In some implementations, the predicted trajectories may be calculated according to various predicted trajectory weightings, such as applying heavier weightings to a straight line path and lighter weightings to other maneuvers.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory; and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position with the suggested teaching of the same found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein each candidate position lies on a corresponding candidate trajectory; and wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy a respective candidate position comprises: using a probability distribution to distribute a probability between a plurality of candidate trajectories, the plurality of candidate trajectories comprising a respective corresponding candidate trajectory for the respective candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 20, (Currently Amended) Schiefele teaches a collision avoidance system for an aircraft, configured and arranged to determine the aircraft's risk of collision at a plurality of candidate positions by: determining [[a]] the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period (see at least Col.1 lines 49-53 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities)”), based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft (see at least Col.3 lines 9-16 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft, from the flying speed and the speed over the ground, and from the speed of changing course and the speed of ascent/descent, wherein a multiplicity of calculations is made with variations of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent.”); determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself”); determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated...for other aircraft;” and Col.4 lines 51-55 “The only aircraft 3, 4, 5 which are included in the calculations are those which are at a distance from the aircraft concerned 1 for which a hazard cannot be completely ruled out taking into account the speed of approach to the aircraft concerned.” also see at least Col.4 line 62-Col.5 line 9); each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that candidate position is encompassed by at least space element, candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period is encompassed at least by (occupancy probabilities) and/or calculating probabilities, initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by respective position, an initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by course and course over the ground of the aircraft, a maneuverability of the aircraft is encompassed at least by the speed of changing course, the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned, and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of other objects.
Schiefele suggests displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory associated to the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.2 lines 17-21 “an evasive route for the aircraft concerned can be calculated and displayed if for at least one space element the probability of simultaneous occupancy by the particular object and by at least one other object exceeds a predetermined value.” and Col.8 lines 13-23 “At 60, collision probabilities KW are calculated, namely probabilities with which at least one other aircraft or another object is situated simultaneously in a space element RE in each case. Thereafter, the programme branches at 61, depending on whether one of the calculated collision probabilities is greater than a predetermined value KWS. If this is the case, an evasive route AR is determined at 62, and is output at 63, optionally together with a display of the conflict area RE (AW.F, AW.H),” also see at least Fig.9) and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least Col.2 lines 27-31 “selecting and displaying the calculated evasive route which gives a probability of a hazardous encounter below a predetermined threshold value at the smallest excursion or by converting it into a control command” and Col.7 lines 46-55 “FIG. 7 illustrates the same flying situation of an aircraft 1 on its approach to an aviation obstacle 41, wherein at time tl+n.1\t a probability exists, which cannot be neglected, that the aircraft 2 is situated together with the building complex in space elements 42, 43, 44. However, the buildings are lower than the elevation of the ground shown in FIG. 6, so that the recommendation to the pilot of the aircraft 1 may be that he should maintain his current flying height in each case.”).
Examiner interprets that displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory is suggested at least by evasive route AR is determined at 62, and is output at 63, optionally together with a display of the conflict area and/or displaying the calculated evasive route which gives a probability of a hazardous encounter.
Schiefele does not explicitly teach displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions.
Lepere suggests displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least [0104]-[0108] “A priori, it is advantageous for the display to indicate all or some of the following information: a) situation of the airplane (Background Display for Situation Awareness); this involves showing the relief of the surrounding terrain, the predicted path of the aircraft and its height relative to the relief b) alert areas (Caution and Warning Alert areas), which correspond to the geographical areas giving rise to the current alert(s), if one exists...d) paths allowing the relief to be avoided.” also see at least Fig.5, Fig.5a, and [0116]).
Examiner interprets that risk of collision is suggested at least by alert areas and plurality of trajectories is encompassed at least by paths allowing the relief to be avoided.
Gariel suggests directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least [0101] “The pilot may interact with the pilot controls 222 to perform the recommended resolution maneuver...the pilot may interact with other interfaces to perform the recommended resolution maneuver. For example, the pilot may interact with dedicated buttons and/or a touchscreen to perform the resolution maneuver. In one specific example, the pilot may interact with a button/touchscreen to select/accept one or more recommended resolution maneuvers. In another specific example, the pilot may interact with a button/touchscreen to command the autopilot to automatically perform the recommended resolution maneuver.” also see at least [0147]).
Examiner interprets that trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories is encompassed at least by recommended resolution maneuver.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of a collision avoidance system for an aircraft, configured and arranged to determine the aircraft's risk of collision at a plurality of candidate positions by: determining the plurality of candidate Schiefele of displaying the risk of collision at a trajectory associated to the plurality of candidate positions and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with the suggested teaching of displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions found in Lepere and the suggested teaching of directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories found in Gariel. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a collision avoidance system for an aircraft, configured and arranged to determine the aircraft's risk of collision at a plurality of candidate positions by: determining the plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; displaying the risk of collision at each of the plurality of trajectories associated to each of the plurality of candidate positions; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Col.1 lines 40-47 and Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiefele et al. (US6201482B1) in view of Lepere et al. (US2003/0107499A1) in view of Gariel et al. (US20221/0350716A1) in further view of Lorenzetti et al. (US12304530B1), hereinafter Schiefele, Lepere, Gariel, and Lorenzetti respectively.
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele suggests wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy the respective candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution (see at least Col.3 lines 35-42 “the statistical scatter of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent, so that at each selected time a statistical distribution of the positions of the aircraft is calculated, and the statistical distributions are converted into occupancy probabilities in individual space elements. Various analytical computational procedures are available for performing this calculation.").
Examiner interprets that Gaussian probability distribution is suggested at least by a statistical distribution.
Lorenzetti more explicitly teaches wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy the respective candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution (see at least Col.3 lines 30-39 “the agent and the vehicle may be represented or modelled based on their probable positions at that time step. In other words, rather than assuming that the agent and vehicle will be at the exact positions indicated by their respective trajectories, the agent and vehicle may be represented by a plurality of positions, each having an associated probability value. The positions and their probabilities may be defined as a probability distribution or a probability density function, such as a normal or Gaussian distribution.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy the respective candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lorenzetti. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy the respective candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; andan initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.” and Col.1 lines 51-53 “probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities),” and Col.3 lines 9-12 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft,”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position (see at least Col.1 lines 56-59 “the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position is encompassed at least by probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times, the initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by relate in particular to the position, the initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by course and/or course over the ground of the aircraft , and the initial speed of the aircraft is encompassed at least by speed.
Lorenzetti more explicitly teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; andan initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.7 lines 46-52 “The agent trajectory 130 may be determined by the prediction component 122 of the vehicle computing device 118. As with the trajectory 112, the agent trajectory 130 may indicate a path and may associate positions along that path with times within a duration, either by indicating speeds along the path or by other temporal information.” and Col.13 lines 3-6 “the localization component 220 may provide data to various components of the vehicle 202 to determine an initial position of an autonomous vehicle for generating a trajectory”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position (see at least Col.3 lines 29-32 “In order to determine the probability of collision for a particular future time step, the agent and the vehicle may be represented or modelled based on their probable positions at that time step.”).
Examiner interprets that determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position is encompassed at least by path with times within a duration and/or temporal information, the initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by initial position; the initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by trajectory 112; and the initial speed of the aircraft is encompassed at least by indicating speeds along the path.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lorenzetti. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4 also see at least Lorenzetti, Col.20 lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 12, (Original) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele suggests wherein the method is repeated at a plurality of time intervals (see at least Col.8 lines 13-23 “At 60, collision probabilities KW are calculated, namely probabilities with which at least one other aircraft or another object is situated simultaneously in a space element RE in each case. Thereafter, the programme branches at 61, depending on whether one of the calculated collision probabilities is greater than a predetermined value KWS. If this is the case, an evasive route AR is determined at 62, and is output at 63, optionally together with a display of the conflict area RE (AW.F, AW.H),. If this is not the case after the branching 61, the programme is repeated, starting at 53, after a predetermined time T at 64.”).
Lorenzetti more explicitly teaches wherein the method is repeated at a plurality of time intervals (see at least Col.8 lines 13-18 “For each time step, a probability of collision may be determined. Steps 134 and 136 illustrate pictorially how a probability of collision may be determined for time t4 as illustrated in box 144. The process described in relation to time t4 may be repeated for each of the time steps for the duration of the trajectory.” and Col.8 lines 1-6 “As shown at step 132, a plurality of time steps may be determined, along with expected positions of the vehicle 102 and the agent 128 along their respective trajectories 112, 130. Four examples of different time steps, at times t1, t2, t3, and t4 are shown in FIG. 1, as indicated in boxes 138, 140, 142, and 144.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method is repeated at a plurality of time intervals with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lorenzetti. One could combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method is repeated at a plurality of time intervals with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4 also see at least Lorenzetti, Col.20 lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 18, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 3 as detailed above.
Schiefele teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; andan initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.4 lines 40-47 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself and for other aircraft; this will be described in more detail later. For this purpose, data are acquired from other aircraft, which data relate in particular to the position, speed, speed of changing course and speed of ascent/descent.” and Col.1 lines 51-53 “probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities),”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position (see at least Col.1 lines 56-59 “the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position is encompassed at least by probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times, the initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by relate in particular to the position, the initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by course and/or course over the ground of the aircraft, and an initial speed of the aircraft is encompassed at least by speed.
Lorenzetti more explicitly teaches wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; andan initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.7 lines 46-52 “The agent trajectory 130 may be determined by the prediction component 122 of the vehicle computing device 118. As with the trajectory 112, the agent trajectory 130 may indicate a path and may associate positions along that path with times within a duration, either by indicating speeds along the path or by other temporal information.”); and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position (see at least Col.3 lines 29-32 “In order to determine the probability of collision for a particular future time step, the agent and the vehicle may be represented or modelled based on their probable positions at that time step.”).
Examiner interprets that determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position is encompassed at least by path with times within a duration and/or temporal information, the initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by initial position; the initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by trajectory 112; and an initial speed of the aircraft is encompassed at least by indicating speeds along the path.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position with the more explicit teaching of the same found in Lorenzetti. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein the method comprises determining an expected time of presence of the aircraft at each candidate position based on: the initial position of the aircraft; the initial trajectory of the aircraft; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position is further based on: the expected time of presence of the aircraft at the candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4 also see at least Lorenzetti, Col.20 lines 6-14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiefele et al. (US6201482B1) in view of Lepere et al. (US2003/0107499A1) in view of Gariel et al. (US2021/0350716A1) in further view of Van Heukelom et al. (US2020/0174481A1), hereinafter Schiefele, Lepere, Gariel, and Van Heukelom respectively.
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) the combination of Schiefele, Lepere, and Gariel teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 as detailed above.
Schiefele suggests wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on a distance between the aircraft's initial position and the candidate position (see at least Col.2 lines 34-37 “In order to identify the risk of collision with other aircraft, provision is made in the procedure according to the invention for occupancy probabilities to be calculated for other aircraft which are situated within a relevant distance.” also see at least Col.6 line 66 – Col.7 line 11).
Van Heukelom suggests wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on a distance between the aircraft's initial position and the candidate position (see at least [0095] “In some examples, the trajectory generation component 736 can include functionality to generate one or more trajectories for the vehicle 702 to follow to traverse through an environment. As discussed herein, in some examples, the trajectory generation component 736 can generate various trajectories corresponding to various actions for the vehicle to perform in an environment. In some examples...the trajectory generation component 736 can generate a trajectory based at least in part on various costs, including but not limited to a reference cost (e.g., a cost associated with generating a trajectory at a distance away from a reference trajectory)”).
Examiner interprets that distance between the aircraft's initial position and the candidate position is suggested at least by generating a trajectory at a distance away from a reference trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on a distance between the aircraft's initial position and the candidate position with the suggested teaching of the same found in Van Heukelom. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is based on a distance between the aircraft's initial position and the candidate position with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Schiefele, Col.1 lines 40-47 and Schiefele, Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiefele et al. (US6201482B1) in view of Lorenzetti et al. (US12304530B1) in further view of Van Heukelom et al. (US2020/0174481A1), hereinafter Schiefele, Lorenzetti, and Van Heukelom respectively.
Regarding claim 21, (New) Schiefele teaches a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining an aircraft's risk of collision during flight at one or more candidate positions, the method comprising: determining a plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period (see at least Col.1 lines 49-53 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities)”), based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft (see at least Col.3 lines 9-16 “calculating probabilities—hereinafter also called occupancy probabilities--from the respective position, course and course over the ground of the aircraft, from the flying speed and the speed over the ground, and from the speed of changing course and the speed of ascent/descent, wherein a multiplicity of calculations is made with variations of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent.”); determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated for the aircraft concerned 1 itself”); determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions (see at least Col.4 lines 40-44 “The illustration shown in FIG. 1, the aircraft 1 is flying into a detection space 2 in which occupancy probabilities are calculated...for other aircraft;” and Col.4 lines 51-55 “The only aircraft 3, 4, 5 which are included in the calculations are those which are at a distance from the aircraft concerned 1 for which a hazard cannot be completely ruled out taking into account the speed of approach to the aircraft concerned.” also see at least Col.4 line 62-Col.5 line 9); and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at a time of presence; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at the time of presence (see at least Col.1 lines 49-59 “In one procedure for identifying a risk of a collision, the object according to the invention is achieved in that for each aircraft concerned, probabilities are calculated with which the aircraft will be situated in predetermined space elements at a plurality of selected times (occupancy probabilities), and that from the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned and the occupancy probabilities of other objects, the probabilities of the simultaneous occupancy of each space element by the aircraft concerned and by at least one of the other objects (collision probabilities) are calculated for the predetermined space elements and the selected times.”).
Examiner interprets that candidate position(s) is encompassed by at least space element(s), candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period is encompassed at least by (occupancy probabilities) and/or calculating probabilities, initial position of the aircraft is encompassed at least by respective position, an initial trajectory of the aircraft is encompassed at least by course and course over the ground of the aircraft, a maneuverability of the aircraft is encompassed at least by the speed of changing course, the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of the aircraft concerned, and the determined presence of any collision hazards at the candidate position is encompassed at least by the occupancy probabilities of other objects.
Schiefele suggests wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution (see at least Col.3 lines 35-42 “the statistical scatter of the flying speed, of the speed of changing course and of the speed of ascent/descent, so that at each selected time a statistical distribution of the positions of the aircraft is calculated, and the statistical distributions are converted into occupancy probabilities in individual space elements. Various analytical computational procedures are available for performing this calculation."); and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least Col.2 lines 27-31 “selecting and displaying the calculated evasive route which gives a probability of a hazardous encounter below a predetermined threshold value at the smallest excursion or by converting it into a control command” and Col.7 lines 46-55 “FIG. 7 illustrates the same flying situation of an aircraft 1 on its approach to an aviation obstacle 41, wherein at time tl+n.1\t a probability exists, which cannot be neglected, that the aircraft 2 is situated together with the building complex in space elements 42, 43, 44. However, the buildings are lower than the elevation of the ground shown in FIG. 6, so that the recommendation to the pilot of the aircraft 1 may be that he should maintain his current flying height in each case.”).
Examiner interprets that Gaussian probability distribution is suggested at least by statistical distribution(s).
Lorenzetti more explicitly teaches wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution (see at least Col.3 lines 30-39 “the agent and the vehicle may be represented or modelled based on their probable positions at that time step. In other words, rather than assuming that the agent and vehicle will be at the exact positions indicated by their respective trajectories, the agent and vehicle may be represented by a plurality of positions, each having an associated probability value. The positions and their probabilities may be defined as a probability distribution or a probability density function, such as a normal or Gaussian distribution.”). Lorenzetti suggests wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position (see at least Col.3 lines 41-46 “The probability distributions may be determined or defined relative to a position of the vehicle or agent along its trajectory at the time step being considered. In other words, the distributions may be defined relative to the position along the trajectory rather than based on their absolute position within the environment.”); and an initial speed of the aircraft (see at least Col.17 lines 41-52 “For example, a distribution may be defined as a function of velocity in each dimension for which the distribution is being determined. An example equation for determining a standard deviation for a distribution in the x direction may be: σpx=c1v(x)+c2 where σpx is the standard deviation in the x direction relative to the vehicle or agent, c1 and c2 are constants and v (x) is velocity at the position x.”).
Examiner interprets that standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position is suggested at least by distributions may be defined relative to the position along the trajectory and Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: an initial speed of the aircraft is suggested at least by distribution may be defined as a function of velocity.
Van Heukelom suggests wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and an initial speed of the aircraft (see at least [0144] “the discretized probability distribution is a probability map based on Gaussian probabilities based at least in part on a classification of the object, an initial position of the object, and a velocity of the object.”); and wherein the method further comprises: associating a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories, respectively, with the plurality of candidate positions (see at least [0021]-[0022] “Region probabilities can be determined for a plurality of positions along an individual trajectory, which may represent various times in the future...Of course, any number of region probabilities can be determined for any frequency and/or time horizon. After determining a plurality of region probabilities, the operations can include summing or otherwise aggregating the region probabilities to determine a trajectory probability of the trajectory. In some cases, the trajectory probability can represent a cumulative risk associated with the trajectory. In some cases, the operations can be performed in parallel to determine region probabilities and trajectory probabilities for multiple trajectories generated by the planning system of the vehicle substantially simultaneously. Further, individual trajectory probabilities of the multiple trajectories can be compared to evaluate the trajectories. In some cases, a trajectory having the lowest probability can represent a lowest risk associated with a trajectory (where a probability corresponds to a likelihood that an object and the vehicle will occupy a same location at a same time).”). Van Heukelom teaches directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories (see at least [0022] “In some cases, a trajectory can be selected based at least in part on the trajectory probability, and the vehicle can be controlled to follow the trajectory to traverse the environment.” and [0072] “In some examples, the operation 620 can include controlling the vehicle 320 to follow a selected trajectory.”).
Examiner interprets that a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories is suggested at least by trajectory probabilities and the plurality of candidate positions is suggested at least by a plurality of positions along an individual trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schiefele of a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining an aircraft's risk of collision during flight at one or more candidate positions, the method comprising: determining a plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at a time of presence; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at the time of presence and the suggested teaching of Schiefele of wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with the teaching of wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution found in Lorenzetti, the suggested teaching of wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and an initial speed of the aircraft found in Lorenzetti, the suggested teaching of wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein the method further comprises: associating a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories, respectively, with the plurality of candidate positions found in Van Heukelom, and the teaching of directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories found in Van Heukelom. One would have been able to combine the teachings in order to have a method of collision avoidance for an aircraft, including determining an aircraft's risk of collision during flight at one or more candidate positions, the method comprising: determining a plurality of candidate positions to which the aircraft is capable of traversing within a time period, based on: an initial position of the aircraft; an initial trajectory of the aircraft; and a maneuverability of the aircraft; determining a probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; determining a presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions; and determining the aircraft's risk of collision at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions based on: the determined probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at a time of presence; and the determined presence of any collision hazards at each candidate position of the plurality of candidate positions at the time of presence; wherein determining the probability that the aircraft will occupy each candidate position comprises using a Gaussian probability distribution; wherein a standard deviation of the Gaussian probability distribution function is based on: a distance between the initial position of the aircraft and each candidate position; and an initial speed of the aircraft; and wherein the method further comprises: associating a risk of collision of a plurality of trajectories, respectively, with the plurality of candidate positions; and directing the aircraft on a trajectory selected from the plurality of trajectories with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain an improved estimate of the flying behavior of other aircrafts and further to enable a pilot to make safe decisions (see at least Col.1 lines 40-47 and Col.3 line 65 - Col.4 line 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Estkowski et al. (US2009/0125221A1) Discloses providing separation management of vehicles. In an embodiment, a separation management system includes a data input module for receiving and filtering aircraft information and airspace information related to a control aircraft and a relevant aircraft, the aircraft information enabling the calculation of a trajectory window for each aircraft. A conflict monitoring module may be included in the system for monitoring the trajectory window for each aircraft with respect to time and probabilistic location, the conflict monitoring module determining when a trajectory overlap occurs resulting from the intersection of the trajectory window for the control aircraft and the relevant aircraft. In addition, the system may include a separation routing module for rerouting the control aircraft when a trajectory overlap for the control aircraft is detected by the conflict monitoring module.
Fabre et al. (US2010/0052973A1) Discloses a monitoring device and method allowing surveillance of the location and the displacement of an aircraft in relation to aircraft and/or craft on an airport displacement zone. The invention is a system cooperative with a communication network of ADS-B type and TIS-B comprising a dedicated transmitter and receiver, these transmitters and receivers making it possible to receive the information regarding the location and displacement of the cooperative aircraft and to monitor the location of the said aircraft in relation to the cooperative aircraft. The monitoring application is based on the detection of conflict zones by inter-correlation of constraint surfaces of the airport zone. The invention applies to aircraft on board which are carried communication means for ADS-B networks for an airport zone monitoring application.
Meunier (US2006/0074559A1) Discloses terrain anticollision equipment using a display device showing a two-dimensional synthetic map of the terrain overflown by the aircraft and in which the relief is shown by superposed slices assigned false colors representative of the magnitude of the risk of collisions. The allocation of the false colors and/or the positions of the slices is referenced with respect to a reference display altitude related to the instantaneous altitude of the aircraft or to a short term forecast altitude for the aircraft each of the referencings having its own advantages as a function of the situation in progress for the aircraft. Here it is proposed that the reference display altitude be made to vary, with gentle transitions, with no visible jerks on the screen, as a function of the aircraft's situation deduced from the flight parameters so as to have, at any moment for the crew, the most pertinent possible and the most useful possible map having regard to the instantaneous situation vis àvis the risks of collision.
Sahawneh et al. (A Probabilistic Framework for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Collision Detection and Risk Estimation) Discloses an approach to quantify likely intruder trajectories and estimate the probability of collision risk for a pair of aircraft flying at the same altitude in close proximity. The proposed approach is formulated in a probabilistic framework building upon the uncorrelated encounter model (UEM) developed by MIT Lincoln Laboratory (LL) and the concept of forward reachable sets.
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 ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights