DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 5/16/2025.
In the application Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Priority
6. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 202411040584 (IN) filed 5/24/2024.
Drawings
7. The Drawings filed on 5/16/2025 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A system…” (machine). Claim 11 is directed to “A method…” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claim 11 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1. A system configured for taxiway navigation of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a display configured to display a graphical user interface (GUI) [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]; and
a controller communicatively coupled to the display, wherein the controller comprises one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory, the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive a current location of the aircraft [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering, pre-solution activity];
determine a route from the current location to a destination location based on at least the current location [mental process] & [mathematical concept];
generate, based on the route, the GUI, wherein the GUI comprises: a message bar configured to selectively display a textual description of at least one of a direction for the aircraft to follow, a warning of an upcoming condition, or an alert of a proximate situation [mental process],
a next segment identifier of a next segment of the route [mental process],
a dynamic distance indication representing a distance from the current location to a next direction transition on the route [mathematical concept] & [mental process],
a direction arrow indicating a direction of the next direction transition [mental process], and
a current segment identifier of a current segment on which the aircraft is located [mental process], and
direct the display to display the GUI [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity] & [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above constitute: a mathematical concept & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim describes a series of mental processes such as route determination, information organization, direction/distance/position identification which are tasks a human navigator could historically perform with paper taxi chart and observations. Furthermore, being layered with mathematical concepts such as distance calculation.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “receive a current location” & “display the GUI”. The Examiner submits that these limitations recite data gathering and post solution activity steps that display the result which amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a display configured to display” & “processors configured to execute”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor). Furthermore describing outputting result via generic display hardware. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 12-17, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe tick marks on arrow that are countable, message bar, warning text with arrow color, alert text, top-down graphical airport layout representation and segment identifier for taxiway/runway ID. These largely recite what information/behavior to display (mental process) which is content merely output via generic display hardware that falls under “Apply it” with data collection under Extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 8 and 18, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describe that a display is integrated into the cockpit instrument panel which recites the addition of physical structure which describe its environmental limitation and fall under field of use [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 9-10 and 19-20, do recite significantly more than an abstract idea has they recite a specific arrangement of interface components rather than merely displaying information that provide improved usability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa (U.S. Pub 2022/0068149, filed Oct. 14, 2020) in view of Doose (U.S. Pub 2004/0006412, filed Feb. 19, 2003).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 11, Khatwa discloses A system configured for taxiway navigation of an aircraft, the system comprising:
a display configured to display a graphical user interface (GUI) (see paragraphs 21, 24 and 53, discloses a flight deck/taxi navigation system for providing progressive taxing guidance to a destination at an aerodrome cockpit display device in which a GUI is presented); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the display, wherein the controller comprises one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory, the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive a current location of the aircraft (see paragraphs 22-26, discloses a controller and processor including an aircraft sensor inputs via GPS, IMU data that identify a location of the aircraft on a travel surface);
determine a route from the current location to a destination location based on at least the current location (see paragraph 26, discloses determining cleared taxi route from taxi clearance and aerodrome mapping data to reach a cleared destination);
generate, based on the route, the GUI, wherein the GUI comprises: a message bar configured to selectively display a textual description of at least one of a direction for the aircraft to follow, a warning of an upcoming condition, or an alert of a proximate situation (see paragraphs 24 and 53, discloses that the controller generates a GUI depicting the route/upcoming surfaces based on the determined cleared taxi route & paragraph 31 and 44 describes mode-based textual/visual annunciations),
a next segment identifier of a next segment of the route (see paragraphs 32 and 39, discloses travel surface signs identifying an upcoming travel surface onto which the aircraft may exit the current travel surface),
a dynamic distance indication representing a distance from the current location to a next direction transition on the route (see paragraphs 32 and 35, discloses current travel surface stick character including tick marks and numeric indicators indicative of distance in front of the aircraft that is updated has the aircraft travels),
a direction arrow indicating a direction of the next direction transition (see paragraph 32, discloses that direction is conveyed via placement left/right of travel surface signs relative to the stick character and via aural alerts), and
a current segment identifier of a current segment on which the aircraft is located, and direct the display to display the GUI (see paragraphs 24, 31-36 and 44, discloses alphanumeric indicator with red color change for disagreements. Further causing the GUI to be displayed as an overlay on the active navigation display device). Khatwa discloses a cockpit generated via controller that receives aircraft location, determines the taxi route and displays current and next travel surface identifiers including distance-to-turn indicates with tick marks/numeric indicators and direction warning and alert messages. Khatwa however fails to teach a moving-map airport layout with the entire highlighted route, a discrete direction-arrow graphic or route determination based on aircrafts current location rather than primarily on taxi clearance. Doose discloses a moving-map display that continuously tracks aircraft position and heading relative to a highlighted taxi route (see paragraphs 28 and 37). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated moving-map navigation into turn guidance and distance symbology of Khatwa has it improves pilot awareness of current taxiways, upcoming turns, and remining distance during taxi operations has outlined by Khatwa in paragraph 20.
Regarding Dependent claims 2 and 12, Khatwa discloses wherein the direction arrow comprises a countable number of tick marks on a vertical portion of the direction arrow corresponding to a countable number of available direction transitions which are present before the next direction transition and which are in a same direction as the direction of the next direction transition (see paragraphs 32 and 35, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 3 and 13, Khatwa discloses wherein the message bar is configured to display a textual description of the next direction transition on the route and the distance to the next direction transition (see paragraphs 31 and 32, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 4 and 14, Khatwa discloses wherein the message bar is configured to display a textual warning indicating that the aircraft is approaching a predetermined hot spot on the route, and wherein the direction arrow is configured to change in color when the textual warning is displayed (see paragraphs 29-30 and 44, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 5 and 15, Khatwa discloses wherein the message bar is configured to display a textual alert indicating that the aircraft is approaching a hold short position on the route (see paragraphs 20 and 40, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 6 and 16, Khatwa discloses fails to teach a top-down graphical representation of airport layout. Doose discloses wherein the GUI further comprises a top-down graphical representation of an airport layout corresponding to the route (see paragraphs 28 and 43). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated moving-map navigation into turn guidance and distance symbology of Khatwa has it improves pilot awareness of current taxiways, upcoming turns, and remining distance during taxi operations has outlined by Khatwa in paragraph 20.
Regarding Dependent claims 7 and 17, Khatwa discloses wherein the next segment identifier and the current segment identifier each comprise at least one of a taxiway identifier and a runway identifier (see paragraphs 31-32, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claims 8 and 18, Khatwa discloses wherein the display is integrated into an aircraft cockpit instrument panel (see paragraphs 21 and 24, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights