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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
2. Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa et al. (European Patent Publication # EP 2 709 084, see also corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2014/0077975) in view of Chenna et al. (European Patent Publication # EP 3 064 407, see also corresponding U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0260335).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-16, Khatwa discloses a method for managing an anti-incursion function of an aircraft taxiing within an airport environment, the method being implemented by monitoring equipment embedded in the aircraft (§10, fig. 2), the method comprising:
displaying, by a human-machine interface of the monitoring equipment, a guidance tile that presents context-dependent information as the aircraft taxies within the airport environment (§ 10);
wherein, when the monitoring equipment detects that the aircraft approaches within a first predetermined threshold of an entry point to an incursion- risk area (§3, 11, 15, claim 10, figs. 1, 3-4: aircraft approaches within a threshold distance of a hold-short line), the method comprises:
updating, by the human-machine interface, the context-dependent information to include a warning indicator (§11, 15, claim 10, figs. 1, 3-4); and
waiting, by the monitoring equipment, for a confirmation that the incursion-risk area is cleared (§17, 19, claim 10, fig. 3); and
wherein, when the monitoring equipment detects that the aircraft approaches within a second predetermined threshold of the entry point to the incursion-risk area prior to receiving the confirmation that the incursion-risk area is cleared, the second predetermined threshold being lower than the first predetermined threshold (§17, 19, claim 10, fig. 3: aircraft has progressed across threshold distance of the hold-short line; or Chenna’s threshold stopping distance §17-19, 23, figs. 3-4), the method comprises:
updating, by the human-machine interface, the context-dependent information to include a message indicating an alert (§17, 19, claim 10, fig. 3).
Khatwa fails to disclose updating the context-dependent information to include a message indicating automatic braking of the aircraft; and initiating automatic braking function of the aircraft when the aircraft fails to stop at most at the entry point to the incursion-risk area.
In the same field of endeavor, Chenna discloses wherein, when the monitoring equipment detects that the aircraft approaches within a second predetermined threshold of the entry point to the incursion-risk area prior to receiving the confirmation that the incursion-risk area is cleared (§17-19, 23, figs. 3-4), updating the context-dependent information to include a message indicating automatic braking of the aircraft (§17-19, 23, figs. 3-4); and initiating automatic braking function of the aircraft when the aircraft fails to stop at most at the entry point to the incursion-risk area (§17-19, 23, figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khatwa to indicate and initiate automatic braking when the aircraft fails to stop before the risk area, as taught by Chenna, in order to improve safety by reducing the risk that the aircraft enters a risk area, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses disengaging the automatic braking function of the aircraft when receiving the confirmation that the incursion- risk area is cleared (Chenna §20).
Regarding claim 3, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that displaying the guidance tile comprises displaying one or more of: a directional instruction identifying a current step in a turn-by-turn guidance instruction; a waypoint indicator identifying a next waypoint along a guidance path; or a next directional instruction identifying a next step in the turn-by-turn guidance instruction (figs. 3-4, etc).
Regarding claim 4, Khatwa in view of Chenna fails to disclose displaying, by the human- machine interface, an action interface that is selectable by human operation via the human-machine interface to confirm that the incursion-risk area is cleared (but well known in the art; see at least Shelton chapter 1.3, figs. 1, 5, 8, 12).
Regarding claim 5, Khatwa in view of Chenna fails to disclose that the incursion-risk area comprises an area in which a moving or fixed obstacle is detected ahead of the aircraft (well known in the art; see at least Shelton chapters 2.6, 3.3, fig. 10 and/or Louis §2, 11-22, 28-33, fig. 1 b); but discloses that the method comprises dynamically creating one or more entry points at a position within the airport environment at a predetermined distance from the incursion-risk area (claim 10).
Regarding claim 6, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that the incursion-risk area comprises a runway; and wherein the entry point of the incursion-risk area is a position within the airport environment at a predetermined distance from the runway (§3, 11, 15, claim 10, figs. 1, 3-4).
Regarding claim 7, Khatwa in view of Chenna fails to disclose displaying, by the human machine interface, an action interface that is selectable by human operation via the human-machine interface to send a clearance request to air traffic control for obtaining authorization to enter the runway; and receiving from the air traffic control an authorization message in response to the clearance request which confirms that the runway is cleared (but well known in the art; see at least Shelton chapter 1.3, figs. 1, 5, 8, 12).
Regarding claim 8, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that in addition to displaying the warning indicator, the method comprises: determining a distance between an actual position of the aircraft and the entry point of the incursion-risk area; and displaying, in the context-dependent information of the guidance tile, a gauge that identifies an amount of room available for maneuvering the aircraft before the second predetermined threshold (Chenna §19).
Regarding claim 9, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that the warning indicator is accompanied by an instruction to brake (Chenna §19).
Regarding claim 10, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that the warning indicator is accompanied by a sound indicating proximity to the entry point (§12, 15, 17: aural alerts).
Regarding claim 11, Khatwa in view of Chenna fails to disclose displaying a navigation map of at least part of the airport environment which includes representations of runways and taxiways of the airport environment; displaying in real-time a representation of an actual position of the aircraft in the airport environment on the navigation map; displaying a guidance path on the navigation map identifying a path to be followed by the aircraft from the actual position to reach a destination in the airport environment; and displaying one or more markers on the navigation map indicating waypoints along the guidance path, wherein the entry point to the incursion-risk area is represented by one of the one or more markers (well known in the art; see at least Shelton fig. 10 and/or McGuffin §22-24, 29-31, 34, figs. 2-3, 6).
Regarding claim 12, Khatwa in view of Chenna fails to disclose that a stop bar crossing the taxiway at the entry point to the incursion-risk area is represented on the navigation map in association with the one of the one or more markers representing the entry point (well known in the art; see at least Shelton fig. 10 and/or McGuffin §22-24, 29-31, 34, figs. 2-3, 6).
Regarding claim 13, Khatwa in view of Chenna further discloses that updating the context-dependent information to include the warning indicator comprises one or more of: changing a color of the one of the one or more marker to one or more predetermined alert color; or changing a color of a portion of the guidance path leading to the entry point to the incursion-risk area to the one or more predetermined alert color (§17-18)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights