DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-21 are pending and rejected as cited below.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “SYSTEM, METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM FOR MODIFYING AIRCRAFT TAXI PATH BASED ON DETECTED OBSTACLES.”
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(s) is/are:
a mapping module (claim 1)
a path trajectory module (claim 1)
a guidance module (claims 1, 4)
an aircraft protection module (claims 1, 6-8)
a virtual assistant module (claims 4-5)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification does not define the corresponding structure of the above cited modules. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method for providing an automated taxi function of an aircraft within an airport environment (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
A method for providing an automated taxi function of an aircraft within an airport environment, the method comprising:
obtaining an airport map representing an airport environment;
receiving digital taxi clearance from an Air Traffic Control (ATC) identifying a destination within the airport environment;
generating a taxi path trajectory to the destination;
computing aircraft guidance instructions based on the taxi path trajectory;
identifying obstacles or incursion risks on the collaborative map in the taxi path trajectory; and
modifying the guidance instructions to generate modified guidance instructions that avoid the obstacles or incursion risks.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
“generating a taxi path trajectory to the destination” in the context of this claim may encompass a human viewing the received data (map and ATC), and forming a simple judgement regarding an appropriate ground path for a plane.
“computing aircraft guidance instructions based on the taxi path trajectory” in the context of this claim may encompass a human using a pen and paper to calculate the thrust and steering angle of the plane in order to navigate the generated path.
“identifying obstacles or incursion risks on the collaborative map in the taxi path trajectory” in the context of this claim may encompass a human looking out of the cockpit window, noticing another aircraft in the generated path, and forming a simple judgement (e.g. “we may collide with that plane.”).
“modifying the guidance instructions to generate modified guidance instructions that avoid the obstacles or incursion risks” in the context of this claim may encompass a human understanding that a collision may take place, and forming a simple judgement (e.g. “we should turn left.”).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, 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”):
A method for providing an automated taxi function of an aircraft within an airport environment, the method comprising:
obtaining an airport map representing an airport environment;
receiving digital taxi clearance from an Air Traffic Control (ATC) identifying a destination within the airport environment;
generating a taxi path trajectory to the destination;
computing aircraft guidance instructions based on the taxi path trajectory;
identifying obstacles or incursion risks on the collaborative map in the taxi path trajectory; and
modifying the guidance instructions to generate modified guidance instructions that avoid the obstacles or incursion risks.
For the following reason, 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 “obtaining an airport map representing an airport environment” and “receiving digital taxi clearance from an Air Traffic Control (ATC) identifying a destination within the airport environment”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps, which acquire data from external sources, are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of 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).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “obtaining an airport map representing an airport environment” and “receiving digital taxi clearance from an Air Traffic Control (ATC) identifying a destination within the airport environment”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 10-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims merely provide additional data gathering means (claims 10-14), additional extra-solution activity (claim 20), or further narrow down the mental process (claims 15-19), none of which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 10-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claims 10-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 1 recites a system used to perform the method detailed in claim 9, therefore it is rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claim 1 recites computer hardware components yet does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause claim 1 to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These claims merely further narrow down the mental process, provide further data gathering means, or describe post solution activities, none of which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 2-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 21 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, perform the method detailed in claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claim 21 recites computer hardware components yet does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 references “a mapping module” and “a path trajectory module,” however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “module” for mapping, nor a “module” for path trajectory.
Claims 1 and 4 reference “a guidance module”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “module” for guidance.
Claims 1 and 6-8 reference “an aircraft protection module”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “module” for aircraft protection.
Claims 4 and 5 reference “a virtual assistant module”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited detailing a “module” for virtual assistance.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1: “a mapping module” and “a path trajectory module”.
Claims 1 and 4: “a guidance module”.
Claims 1 and 6-8: “an aircraft protection module”.
Claims 4 and 5: “a virtual assistant module”.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function(s) in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret a “module” to be a generic physical sub-processor on the main system 100 circuit.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the collaborative map” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9 and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al.
(US Pub. 2025/0349218 A1; hereafter Liu), in view of Nutaro et al. (US Pub. 2014/0114557 A1; hereafter Nutaro).
Nutaro was cited in the IDS filed 08/19/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
An automated taxi system (system 100) for an aircraft (vehicle 102) comprising:
a mapping module configured to obtain an airport map representing an airport environment (At least ¶ [0038] “an airport moving map database 240 stored in a memory unit. The airport moving map database 240 contains map information for an airport element, such as coordination information for each airport element and connecting information between different airport elements, including locations where there is an intersection between one taxiway and another taxiway, for example.”);
a path trajectory module configured to receive digital taxi clearance from an Air Traffic Control (ATC) identifying a destination within the airport environment (At least ¶ [0045] “method 300 receives a taxi clearance (block 310) from an ATC controller, in either voice format or text format.”) and to generate a taxi path trajectory to the destination (At least ¶ [0045] “The method 300 then generates a taxi route based on an airport moving map database (AMDB) (block 314). For example, taxi route generation and validation module 244 can be used to generate a geographic taxi route for an aircraft based on the ATC clearance input and the airport moving map database.”).
Liu does not teach:
a guidance module configured to compute guidance instructions based on the taxi path trajectory; and
an aircraft protection module configured to identify obstacles or incursion risks on the airport map in the taxi path trajectory and to modify the guidance instructions to avoid the obstacles or incursion risks.
However, Nutaro, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a guidance module configured to compute guidance instructions based on the taxi path trajectory (At least ¶ [0041] “the system processes relevant input data and, in response thereto, generates taxi path guidance information related to a desired taxi route to follow.”); and
an aircraft protection module configured to identify obstacles or incursion risks on the airport map in the taxi path trajectory (At least ¶ [0049] “Surface guidance and hazard avoidance sub-function 302 is capable of automatically providing surface guidance and smart hazard avoidance to aircraft 100, and is capable of alerting the flight crew should such a hazard arise. To do this, surface guidance and hazard avoidance sub-function considers surveillance information from traffic including surrounding aircraft and ground vehicles 317 … Hazard alerts may be provided if an aircraft is in a potential hazardous situation. Such alerts may be formulated within the auto-guidance and control system and/or in other aircraft systems. Such alerts may include advisory, cautionary, and/or audible and visual alerts relating to, (1) potential collisions with other aircrafts or ground vehicles; (2) crossing or entering a runway occupied by another aircraft or ground vehicle; (3) aircraft deviation from an assigned taxi route; and (4) receipt or acceptance by the aircraft of a taxi clearance that includes taxiways and runaways that are not appropriate for the aircraft, e.g. aircraft too heavy or too wide.” Another aircraft or a ground vehicle is an example of an obstacle, and aircraft deviation from an assigned taxi route is an example of an incursion risk.) and to modify the guidance instructions to avoid the obstacles or incursion risks (At least ¶ [0050] “Surface guidance and hazard avoidance sub-function may also utilize position information of other aircraft to change the taxi path when other aircraft, vehicles, or objects block the natural or assigned route. In most cases, permission from the tower may be required to deviate from the assigned path. If there are two entrances to a runway, and a first aircraft is already waiting at one, the auto-guidance and control system of a second aircraft will detect that an assigned entrance is blocked and determine a new path to the other entrance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu with Nutaro. This modification would have been obvious as both Liu and Nutaro contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (aircraft taxiing) and Liu stresses that safety on the runway is paramount; see Liu ¶ [0001] “Conditional clearances are an important tool for air traffic control (ATC) to manage the flow of traffic and maintain safety both in the air and on the ground.” and ¶ [0105] “… to keep a safe separation between the vehicle and the proceeding aircraft or other obstacle.” Introducing Nutaro to Liu may help increase the safety of the Liu system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that being able to change the taxi path of an aircraft when it is blocked by an obstacle may help increase the safety of all onboard, and proximate to, the taxiing aircraft. If an aircraft is able to avoid a collision by modifying a taxiing path, the passengers onboard will suffer far fewer injuries than if the aircraft were to collide with the obstacle. Additionally, a user of the Liu system may notice an increase in fuel efficiency due to fewer unnecessary ground maneuvers.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein the airport map is a collaborative map that includes data received from one or more of the Air Traffic Control (ATC), a network of an airline associated with the aircraft, systems onboard the aircraft, or data suppliers associated with the airline (At least ¶ [0030] “An airport moving map database 132 is stored in memory unit 130.” Memory unit 130 is a system onboard the aircraft.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 2, Liu further teaches:
wherein the data from the Air Traffic Control (ATC) includes one or more of a ground trajectory of the aircraft or taxi clearances for other aircraft within the airport environment (At least ¶ [0049] “in case the ATC clearance includes a condition, which must be met before the aircraft can proceed, ATC clearance processing module 220 extracts and transmits the condition to image processing module 230. For example, an ATC clearance can state: “UAS one two three, Follow Airbus 320, right turn on taxiway November, hold short of Runway Two-Seven Left.”” Underlined portion is an example of a ground trajectory for the aircraft.);
while Nutaro further teaches:
wherein the data from the network of the airline includes one or more of data from an Operations Control Center (OCC) of the airline, including takeoff time, or a flight path or flight trajectory of the aircraft (At least ¶ [0034] “The databases 230 may be updated as needed to reflect the specific aircraft, the current flight plan, the departing and destination airports, and the like.”);
wherein data captured by systems onboard the aircraft includes one or more of data captured by one or more sensors of the aircraft, data from an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) system onboard the aircraft, or an automatic dependent surveillance-contracts (ADS-C) onboard the aircraft (At least ¶ [0040] “the host aircraft supports data communication with one or more remote systems; e.g. from airport surface vehicles which, besides aircraft, may include other vehicles such as refueling trucks and security vans. More specifically, the host aircraft receives status data for neighboring aircraft using, for example, an aircraft-to-aircraft data communication module (i.e., the source of neighboring aircraft status data 242) or multiple on-board collision avoidance sensors. For example, the source of neighboring aircraft status data 242 may be configured for compatibility with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, with active Mode S interrogation technology, and/or with similar technologies.”); and
wherein data from data suppliers includes one or more of weather data from a weather server, airport data from airport servers, or Notice to Air Men (NOTAM) data (At least ¶ [0034] “ … the databases 230 may store any of the following, without limitation: airport location data; airport feature data, which may include layout data, coordinate data, data related to the location and orientation of gates, runways, taxiways, etc.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 1, Nutaro further teaches:
comprising a virtual assistant module configured to generate a modified taxi path trajectory based on predetermined constraints to be fulfilled during taxiing and information derived from the airport map (At least ¶ [0050] “the auto-guidance and control system of a second aircraft will detect that an assigned entrance is blocked and determine a new path to the other entrance.”);
wherein the guidance module is configured to compute the guidance instructions based on the modified taxi path trajectory (At least ¶ [0041] “the system processes relevant input data and, in response thereto, generates taxi path guidance information related to a desired taxi route to follow.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 4, Nutaro further teaches wherein the virtual assistant module is configured to provide outputs to a pilot of the aircraft to support a continuous monitoring of tasks (At least ¶ [0044] “the electric taxi guidance information can be merged into the display to provide enhanced situational awareness and taxi instructions to the pilot in real-time.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 1, Liu further teaches:
wherein the aircraft protection module is configured to:
receive inputs from one or more sensors that identify one or more obstacle (At least ¶ [0046] “method 300 captures an airport environment image by a look-forward optical sensor”);
compare the taxi path trajectory to a location of the one or more obstacle (At least ¶ [0088] “the image processing module calculates and determines the distance from the aircraft to an obstacle”); and
generate the modified guidance instructions that avoids the one or more obstacle (At least ¶ [0088] “When the image processing module calculates and determines the distance from the aircraft to an obstacle, and the aircraft moving direction is less than a safe separation, the image processing module signals the command generation module to generate a slow-down command.” A slow down command is analogous to modifying guidance instructions in order to avoid an obstacle.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 6, Nutaro further teaches wherein the aircraft protection module is configured to suppress collision detection alerts and intervening actions with respect to ones of the one or more obstacle that are outside the taxi path trajectory (At least ¶ [0057] “The alerts from this system may be fed to surface guidance and hazard avoidance function 302 … Surface guidance and hazard alert sub-function 302 then determines the appropriate action, if any, for the electric taxi system: e.g. brake, slow down, etc.” Determining that no action needs to be taken based on alerts fed into the sub-function 302 is analogous to suppressing collision detection alerts.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The system of claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein the aircraft protection module is configured to execute an anti-incursion function that triggers one or more of automatic braking of the aircraft or an alert to the pilot when approaching an incursion-risk area (At least ¶ [0052] “image processing module 230 can also process look-forward images to calculate the distance to any obstacle in the moving direction, when the distance is less than a configurable separation threshold. For example, command generation module 254 can generate a slow-down command, which is transmitted to control module 258 to control a brake and/or throttle to reduce aircraft taxi speed.”).
Claim 9 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 10 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 2, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 11 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 12 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 13 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 14 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 15 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 4, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 16 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 6, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 17 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 7, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The method of claim 9, Liu further teaches wherein modifying the guidance instructions further comprises receiving direct orders from the Air Traffic Control (ATC) (At least ¶ [0036] “An ATC clearance processing module 220 is operative to receive ATC clearance information, such as from a bidirectional communication radio onboard a vehicle such as an aircraft. The ATC clearance processing module 220 is operative to translate the ATC clearance information into processor readable information. For example, ATC clearance processing module 220 can translate taxi clearance information into some computer understandable information, which can include airport elements such as taxiway, runway, and/or some conditions that must be met before the aircraft can proceed as authorized.”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Liu and Nutaro teaches The method of claim 9, Liu further teaches wherein modifying the guidance instructions further comprises receiving input from a pilot of the aircraft (At least ¶ [0055] “a voice taxi clearance message 420 can be received, via a voice channel of a communication radio, by voice recognition engine 412; a datalink taxi clearance (D-TAXI) message 422 can be received, through a datalink application, by interpretation engine 414; or a manually input taxi clearance message 424, input by a pilot via devices such as a multi-function control and display unit (MCDU) or a touch screen controller …”).
Claim 20 recites a method performed by the system detailed in claim 5, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 21 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, perform the steps detailed in the system of claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights