CTNF 19/211,920 CTNF 97686 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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: “aircraft guidance system” provided in claim 1 The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (item a): Specification – “…the terms system and component are intended to refer to a computer-related entity, either hardware, a combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution, examples of which are provided by the exemplary computer architecture 700…” Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to an automated taxiing system (i.e., a machine), a method (i.e., a process), and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 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. Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Independent claims 1, 14, and 20 recite the following information: An automated taxiing system/method/non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions for an aircraft comprising: a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors to capture surveillance data on a taxiway of an airport; an aircraft guidance system configured to alter a trajectory of the aircraft during a taxiing phase of the aircraft; and a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to: receive the surveillance data and determine, based on an analysis thereof, whether an object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway; in response to determining that the object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway, indicate a location of the object or hazard on a geographic map of the airport and save the location of the object or hazard in the memory; predict a trajectory of the object or hazard in relation to a location and the trajectory of the aircraft; calculate, based on the location and trajectory of the object or hazard and the location and trajectory of the aircraft, a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory. The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that monitors traffic on a taxiway of an airport, gathers information obtained by observation and sensors related to objects or hazards located on the taxiway, indicates locations of the identified objects or hazards on a map, estimates a trajectory for the objects or hazards relative to the location and a trajectory of a target aircraft, determines a maneuver for the aircraft to avoid the identified objects or hazards that includes a revised trajectory based on the trajectories of the objects or hazards relative to the trajectory of the aircraft. Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to monitor traffic on a taxiway of an airport, gather information obtained by observation and sensors related to objects or hazards present on the taxiway, organize and identify locations of the objects or hazards on a map, estimate a trajectory for the objects or hazards relative to the location and a trajectory of an observed target aircraft, determine a maneuver for the aircraft to avoid the identified objects or hazards that includes a revised trajectory based on the estimated trajectories of the objects or hazards relative to the trajectory of the target aircraft. 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. 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.” Claims 1, 14, and 20 do contain additional elements of an automated taxiing system, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuit of an aircraft system of an aircraft, causes the aircraft system to perform steps, a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors, an aircraft guidance system, a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to perform steps, save the location of the object or hazard in the memory, and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process. 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 elements of an automated taxiing system, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuit of an aircraft system of an aircraft, causes the aircraft system to perform steps, a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors, an aircraft guidance system, a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to perform steps, save the location of the object or hazard in the memory, and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft taxiing system environment. The automated taxiing system, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuit of an aircraft system of an aircraft, causes the aircraft system to perform steps, a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors, an aircraft guidance system, a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to perform steps, save the location of the object or hazard in the memory, and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the data capturing, aircraft trajectory altering, location indicating on a map, location saving, hazard trajectory predicting, guidance order calculating, and guidance order sending components of the system. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the data capturing, aircraft trajectory altering, location indicating on a map, location saving, hazard trajectory predicting, guidance order calculating, and guidance order sending steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process. 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, representative independent claims 1, 14, and 20 do 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 elements of an automated taxiing system, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuit of an aircraft system of an aircraft, causes the aircraft system to perform steps, a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors, an aircraft guidance system, a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to perform steps, save the location of the object or hazard in the memory, and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. 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), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claims 1, 14, and 20, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US 20250292694 A1 (“Liu”) in view of Nutaro et al. US 20140114557 A1 (“Nutaro”) . For claim 1, Liu discloses an automated taxiing system for an aircraft (See at least [0027] – “… FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an example aircraft ground collision avoidance system 100 on an aircraft …” and [0034] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to predict the movement of the ownship aircraft … determine whether the ownship aircraft is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the ownship aircraft based on the allowed travel path of the airport element …”) comprising: a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors to capture surveillance data on a taxiway of an airport (See at least [0042] of Liu – “… The example process 200 includes obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information … such as other aircraft, ground vehicles… obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor …”) ; an aircraft guidance system configured to alter a trajectory of the aircraft during a taxiing phase of the aircraft (See at least [0034] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of the ownship aircraft using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116, which includes coordinates of airport elements such as runways and taxiways... determine whether the ownship aircraft is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the ownship aircraft based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; and a processing circuit in communication with the surveillance system and coupled to a memory having executable instructions stored thereon (See at least [0092] of Liu – “… a collision avoidance system in an ownship vehicle is provided. The system comprises a controller configured by programming instructions encoded on non-transitory computer readable media…”) , which when executed by the processing circuit cause the processing circuit configured to: receive the surveillance data and determine, based on an analysis thereof, whether an object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; in response to determining that the object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway, indicate a location of the object or hazard on a geographic map of the airport (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway… “ and [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to … retrieve mapping data from an airport moving map database which includes coordinates of airport elements that includes runways, taxiways… determine surrounding objects information for a detected dynamic obstacle including position, velocity, heading, and size of the detected dynamic obstacle… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of … detected obstructions”) and save the location of the object or hazard in the memory (See at least [0029] of Liu – “… The computer-readable storage device or media 104 may be implemented … by the controller … to store an airport moving map database 116 … to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle…”) ; predict a trajectory of the object or hazard in relation to a location and the trajectory of the aircraft (See at least [0082]-[0084] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle… The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can make use of an airport moving map database to correct aircraft and object position and/or path for predicting possible alert situations…”) ; calculate, based on the location and trajectory of the object or hazard and the location and trajectory of the aircraft, a guidance order for the aircraft (See at least [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of the ownship vehicle and/or detected obstructions; calculate based on the corrected position and/or path, a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and detected obstructions… and cause a collision alert to be displayed on the display device when a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and a detected obstruction is imminent...”) ; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft (See at least [0027] of Liu – “… the controller is configured to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle and provide a collision risk warning via the display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew if substantial risk of collision is predicted…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose calculate a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory. However, Nutaro, in the same field of endeavor teaches calculate a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “… 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… 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...”) ; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “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… Visual electric taxi guidance system (VGS) 213 will display the new path option and produce an alert to the crew. If several aircrafts are in line for access to a runway for takeoff, the auto-guidance and control system will monitor the position of the aircraft in front and then start, stop, and adjust the speed as necessary to proceed in line…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Nutaro teaches a control system for an aircraft that determines a new taxi path for the aircraft when other objects interfere with an original route and sends the new path to a display of the aircraft to alert crew members of the new path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of calculating a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard as taught by Nutaro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform a crew of the new taxi path as specified in at least [0050] of Nutaro. For claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more of: one or more cameras; a lidar device; a radar device; a microwave sensor; and an infrared sensor (See at least [0042] of Liu – “… The example process 200 includes obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information … such as other aircraft, ground vehicles… obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor …”). For claim 5, Liu discloses wherein the surveillance system is configured to detect borderlines of the taxiway (See at least [0045] of Liu – “… Position measurements obtained from position sensors onboard an ownship aircraft may provide a position that deviates away from a taxiway guidance line even when an aircraft actually taxis along the taxiway guidance line…”) ; wherein the processing circuit is configured to correlate the borderlines to mapped borderlines of the taxiway on the geographic map and predict a further location of the taxiway borderlines as the aircraft continues moving, the further location of the taxiway borderlines being based on the mapped borderlines of the taxiway (See at least [0088] of Liu – “…predict a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the ownship vehicle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the ownship vehicle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the ownship vehicle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) ; and wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard and calculating the guidance order are performed based on the borderlines of the taxiway correlated to the mapped borderlines of the taxiway on the geographic map (See at least [0088] of Liu – “… predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the dynamic obstacle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) . For claim 7, Liu discloses wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard includes the processing circuit being configured to predict the trajectory of the object or hazard based on the geographic map of the taxiway (See at least [0088] of Liu – “… predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the dynamic obstacle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) . For claim 11, Liu discloses wherein the processing circuit is configured to access the geographic map of the airport, wherein the geographic map includes a predefined object or hazard present on the taxiway (See at least [0073] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, based on the corrected position and/or path, a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and detected obstructions (operation 1014), including using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from the statistical model to filter out a nuisance alert of a potential collision that cannot occur because of travel path constraints imposed by runways, taxiways…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein calculating the guidance order including the revised trajectory includes calculating the guidance order and revised trajectory to avoid the predefined object or hazard present on the taxiway. However, Nutaro, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein calculating the guidance order including the revised trajectory includes calculating the guidance order and revised trajectory to avoid the predefined object or hazard present on the taxiway (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “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… Visual electric taxi guidance system (VGS) 213 will display the new path option and produce an alert to the crew. If several aircrafts are in line for access to a runway for takeoff, the auto-guidance and control system will monitor the position of the aircraft in front and then start, stop, and adjust the speed as necessary to proceed in line…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Nutaro teaches a control system for an aircraft that determines a new taxi path for the aircraft when other objects interfere with an original route and sends the new path to a display of the aircraft to alert crew members of the new path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of calculating the guidance order and revised trajectory to avoid the predefined object or hazard present on the taxiway as taught by Nutaro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform a crew of the new taxi path as specified in at least [0050] of Nutaro. For claim 14, Liu discloses a method for taxiing an aircraft (See at least [0027] – “… FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an example aircraft ground collision avoidance system 100 on an aircraft …” and [0034] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to predict the movement of the ownship aircraft … determine whether the ownship aircraft is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the ownship aircraft based on the allowed travel path of the airport element …”) comprising: capturing, using a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors, surveillance data on a taxiway of an airport (See at least [0042] of Liu – “… The example process 200 includes obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information … such as other aircraft, ground vehicles… obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor …”) ; receiving, at a processing circuit, the surveillance data and determining, based on an thereof, whether an object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; in response to determining that the object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway, indicating, by the processing circuit, a location of the object or hazard on a geographical map of the airport (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway… “ and [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to … retrieve mapping data from an airport moving map database which includes coordinates of airport elements that includes runways, taxiways… determine surrounding objects information for a detected dynamic obstacle including position, velocity, heading, and size of the detected dynamic obstacle… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of … detected obstructions”) and saving the location of the object or hazard in a memory coupled to the processing circuit (See at least [0029] of Liu – “… The computer-readable storage device or media 104 may be implemented … by the controller … to store an airport moving map database 116 … to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle…”) ; calculating, by the processing circuit, a trajectory of the object or hazard in relation to a location and trajectory of the aircraft (See at least [0082]-[0084] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle… The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can make use of an airport moving map database to correct aircraft and object position and/or path for predicting possible alert situations…”) ; calculating, by the processing circuit, based on the location and trajectory of the object or hazard and the location and trajectory of the aircraft, a guidance order for the aircraft (See at least [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of the ownship vehicle and/or detected obstructions; calculate based on the corrected position and/or path, a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and detected obstructions… and cause a collision alert to be displayed on the display device when a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and a detected obstruction is imminent...”) ; sending the guidance order to an aircraft guidance system of the aircraft (See at least [0027] of Liu – “… the controller is configured to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle and provide a collision risk warning via the display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew if substantial risk of collision is predicted…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose calculating a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard; sending the guidance order to an aircraft guidance system of the aircraft; and altering, by the aircraft guidance system, the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory. However, Nutaro, in the same field of endeavor teaches calculating a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “… 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… 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...”) ; sending the guidance order to an aircraft guidance system of the aircraft (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “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… Visual electric taxi guidance system (VGS) 213 will display the new path option and produce an alert to the crew…”) ; and altering, by the aircraft guidance system, the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “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… Visual electric taxi guidance system (VGS) 213 will display the new path option and produce an alert to the crew. If several aircrafts are in line for access to a runway for takeoff, the auto-guidance and control system will monitor the position of the aircraft in front and then start, stop, and adjust the speed as necessary to proceed in line…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Nutaro teaches a control system for an aircraft that determines a new taxi path for the aircraft when other objects interfere with an original route and sends the new path to a display of the aircraft to alert crew members of the new path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of calculating a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard as taught by Nutaro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform a crew of the new taxi path as specified in at least [0050] of Nutaro. For claim 17, Liu discloses wherein the method further includes using a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors to detect borderlines of the taxiway (See at least [0045] of Liu – “… Position measurements obtained from position sensors onboard an ownship aircraft may provide a position that deviates away from a taxiway guidance line even when an aircraft actually taxis along the taxiway guidance line…”) ; wherein the method further includes correlating the borderlines to mapped borderlines of the taxiway on the geographic map and predicting a further location of the taxiway borderlines as the aircraft continues moving, the further location of the taxiway borderlines being based on the mapped borderlines of the taxiway (See at least [0088] of Liu – “…predict a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the ownship vehicle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the ownship vehicle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the ownship vehicle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the ownship vehicle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) ; and wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard and calculating the guidance order are performed based on the borderlines of the taxiway correlated to the mapped borderlines of the taxiway on the geographic map (See at least [0088] of Liu – “… predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the dynamic obstacle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) . For claim 18, Liu discloses wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard includes predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard based on the geographic map of the taxiway (See at least [0088] of Liu – “… predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle the controller may be configured to predict a series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle by estimating a next future position using a previous estimated position, velocity, and heading of the dynamic obstacle, adjusting the estimated next future position to the nearest coordinate on the guidance line and choosing the nearest coordinate as a predicted next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be less than or equal to the threshold distance away from the estimated next future position and choosing the estimated next future position as the estimated next future position for the dynamic obstacle when the nearest coordinate may be greater than a threshold distance away from the estimated next future position… The coordinate data retrieved from the airport map database may comprise coordinate data for a guidance line for an airport travel pathway…”) . For claim 20, Liu discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having executable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processing circuit of an aircraft system of an aircraft (See at least [0092] of Liu – “… a collision avoidance system in an ownship vehicle is provided. The system comprises a controller configured by programming instructions encoded on non-transitory computer readable media…”) , causes the aircraft system to: receive surveillance data from a surveillance system comprising one or more sensors to capture the surveillance data on a taxiway of an airport (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…” and [0042] of Liu – “… The example process 200 includes obtaining ownship aircraft and obstacle information … such as other aircraft, ground vehicles… obtained by active or passive sensors onboard the ownship such as radar, Lidar, camera, ultrasound sensor …”) ; determine, based on an analysis of the surveillance data, whether an object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; in response to determining that the object or hazard is present on, or adjacent to, the taxiway, indicate a location of the object or hazard on a geographic map of the airport (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway… “ and [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to … retrieve mapping data from an airport moving map database which includes coordinates of airport elements that includes runways, taxiways… determine surrounding objects information for a detected dynamic obstacle including position, velocity, heading, and size of the detected dynamic obstacle… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of … detected obstructions”) and save the location of the object or hazard in a memory (See at least [0029] of Liu – “… The computer-readable storage device or media 104 may be implemented … by the controller … to store an airport moving map database 116 … to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle…”) ; predict a trajectory of the object or hazard in relation to a location and the trajectory of the aircraft (See at least [0082]-[0084] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle… The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can make use of an airport moving map database to correct aircraft and object position and/or path for predicting possible alert situations…”) ; calculate, based on the location and trajectory of the object or hazard and the location and trajectory of the aircraft, a guidance order for the aircraft (See at least [0092] of Liu – “… The controller is configured to… correct using the mapping data from the airport moving map database and/or historical mapping data derived from a statistical model, the position and/or path of the ownship vehicle and/or detected obstructions; calculate based on the corrected position and/or path, a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and detected obstructions… and cause a collision alert to be displayed on the display device when a potential collision risk between the ownship vehicle and a detected obstruction is imminent...”) ; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft (See at least [0027] of Liu – “… the controller is configured to predict a collision risk for the ownship aircraft with an obstacle and provide a collision risk warning via the display device 106 for consumption by the flight crew if substantial risk of collision is predicted…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose calculate a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory. However, Nutaro, in the same field of endeavor teaches calculate a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “… 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… 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...”) ; and send the guidance order to the aircraft guidance system of the aircraft to thereby alter the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory (See at least [0050] of Nutaro – “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… Visual electric taxi guidance system (VGS) 213 will display the new path option and produce an alert to the crew. If several aircrafts are in line for access to a runway for takeoff, the auto-guidance and control system will monitor the position of the aircraft in front and then start, stop, and adjust the speed as necessary to proceed in line…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Nutaro teaches a control system for an aircraft that determines a new taxi path for the aircraft when other objects interfere with an original route and sends the new path to a display of the aircraft to alert crew members of the new path. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of calculating a guidance order for the aircraft including a revised trajectory to avoid the object or hazard as taught by Nutaro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inform a crew of the new taxi path as specified in at least [0050] of Nutaro . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chik US 20240144836 A1 (“Chik”) . For claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the geographic map of the airport comprises taxiway segments and service road locations (See at least [0040] – “… display device 106 can display an airport map, which includes runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, etc., and overlay, on the airport map, a symbol for the ownship aircraft and a symbol for a detected object …”) ; wherein determining that the object or hazard is present on the taxiway includes the processing circuit being configured to determine whether the object or hazard is located on a taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; and wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard includes the processing circuit configured to forecast a movement of the object or hazard on the taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0082]-[0084] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle… The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can make use of an airport moving map database to correct aircraft and object position and/or path for predicting possible alert situations…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein determining that the object or hazard is adjacent to the taxiway includes the processing circuit being configured to determine whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road. However, Chik, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining that the object or hazard is adjacent to the taxiway includes the processing circuit being configured to determine whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0037] of Chik – “… the auto-taxi system 120 may perform a variety of response actions in response to detecting a potential collision hazard within the safety boundaries. For example, the auto-taxi system 120 may generate a notification signal to the pilot responsive to detecting a potential collision hazard within the first threshold distance 202…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Chik teaches an aircraft taxiing system that is able to detect whether obstacles are within a threshold distance of a service road on which the aircraft is travelling on. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of determining whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road as taught by Chik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate a notification signal to the pilot for a potential collision hazard as specified in at least [0037] of Chik. For claim 15, Liu discloses wherein the geographic map of the airport comprises taxiway segments and service road locations (See at least [0040] – “… display device 106 can display an airport map, which includes runways, taxiways, terminal buildings, etc., and overlay, on the airport map, a symbol for the ownship aircraft and a symbol for a detected object …”) ; wherein determining that the object or hazard is present on the taxiway includes determining whether the object or hazard is located on a taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0035] – “… The controller is configured to correct the predicted position and path of dynamic obstacles using airport moving map data from the airport moving map database 116. The controller is configured to determine whether a dynamic obstacle is traveling on an airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway) and predict the movement of the dynamic obstacle based on the allowed travel path of the airport element (e.g., runway or taxiway…”) ; and wherein predicting the trajectory of the object or hazard forecasting a movement of the object or hazard on the taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0082]-[0084] of Liu – “… calculating, by the processor, whether a potential collision is imminent by estimating whether the predicted series of future positions for the ownship vehicle will intersect with the predicted series of future positions for the dynamic obstacle… The apparatus, systems, techniques and articles provided herein can make use of an airport moving map database to correct aircraft and object position and/or path for predicting possible alert situations…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein determining that the object or hazard is adjacent to the taxiway includes determining whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road. However, Chik, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein determining that the object or hazard is adjacent to the taxiway includes determining whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road (See at least [0037] of Chik – “… the auto-taxi system 120 may perform a variety of response actions in response to detecting a potential collision hazard within the safety boundaries. For example, the auto-taxi system 120 may generate a notification signal to the pilot responsive to detecting a potential collision hazard within the first threshold distance 202…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Chik teaches an aircraft taxiing system that is able to detect whether obstacles are within a threshold distance of a service road on which the aircraft is travelling on. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of determining whether the object or hazard is located within a predetermined distance of the taxiway segment or service road as taught by Chik, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to generate a notification signal to the pilot for a potential collision hazard as specified in at least [0037] of Chik . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abdulhamid et al. US 20240246574 A1 (“Abdulhamid”) . For claim 4, Liu discloses wherein the object or hazard is a stationary object (See at least [0006] of Liu – “… an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data and dimension data for a static obstruction…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine that the object or hazard is the stationary object based on the surveillance data and the location of the object or hazard on the geographic map; wherein, in response to the processing circuit determining that the object or hazard is a stationary object, the processing circuit is configured to predict that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft. However, Abdulhamid, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine that the object or hazard is the stationary object based on the surveillance data and the location of the object or hazard on the geographic map (See at least [0049] of Abdulhamid – “… a predicted trajectory can be assigned … if object 204 stays within a predetermined radius … indicates that object 204 is predicted to stay stationary…”) ; wherein, in response to the processing circuit determining that the object or hazard is a stationary object, the processing circuit is configured to predict that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft (See at least [0049] of Abdulhamid – “… a predicted trajectory can be assigned … if object 204 stays within a predetermined radius … indicates that object 204 is predicted to stay stationary…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Abdulhamid teaches a system for a vehicle that is able to determine whether an object near the vehicle is a stationary object and predict whether the object will stay stationary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of predicting that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft as taught by Abdulhamid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to predict whether an object will move in a certain direction or be stationary as specified in at least [0049] of Abdulhamid. For claim 16, Liu discloses wherein the object or hazard is a stationary object (See at least [0006] of Liu – “… an airport map database that includes coordinate data for airport travel pathways and coordinate data and dimension data for a static obstruction…”) . Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the method further includes determining that the object or hazard is the stationary object based on the surveillance data and the location of the object or hazard on the geographic map; wherein, in response to determining that the object or hazard is a stationary object, the method further includes predicting that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft. However, Abdulhamid, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the method further includes determining that the object or hazard is the stationary object based on the surveillance data and the location of the object or hazard on the geographic map (See at least [0049] of Abdulhamid – “… a predicted trajectory can be assigned … if object 204 stays within a predetermined radius … indicates that object 204 is predicted to stay stationary…”) ; wherein, in response to determining that the object or hazard is a stationary object, the method further includes predicting that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft (See at least [0049] of Abdulhamid – “… a predicted trajectory can be assigned … if object 204 stays within a predetermined radius … indicates that object 204 is predicted to stay stationary…”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Abdulhamid teaches a system for a vehicle that is able to determine whether an object near the vehicle is a stationary object and predict whether the object will stay stationary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of predicting that the object or hazard will remain stationary in relation to the aircraft as taught by Abdulhamid, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to predict whether an object will move in a certain direction or be stationary as specified in at least [0049] of Abdulhamid . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Scherer et al. US 9341478 B1 (“Scherer”) . For claim 6, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein a field of view of the one or more sensors is adjusted by the processing circuit being configured to no longer capture data on the borderlines of the taxiway. However, Scherer, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a field of view of the one or more sensors is adjusted by the processing circuit being configured to no longer capture data on the borderlines of the taxiway (See at least Col. 6 lines 54-62 of Scherer – “… image modification area 226 may be employed for intersecting surfaces… FIG. 3A, the display of taxiway centerline 220 has been inhibited even though its corresponding non-intersecting taxiway 210 overlaps the lower boundary of the image modification area 226. The inhibition of surface marking(s) of non-intersecting surface(s) may enhance situational awareness by reducing visual clutter…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Scherer teaches an inhibition system that inhibits taxiway lines shown on a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of a field of view of the one or more sensors is adjusted by the processing circuit being configured to no longer capture data on the borderlines of the taxiway as taught by Scherer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance situational awareness by reducing visual clutter as specified in at least Col. 6 lines 54-62 of Scherer . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choksi et al. US 20140278037 A1 (“Choksi”) and Dame et al. US 20200027362 A1 (“Dame”) . For claim 8, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein altering the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory includes the aircraft guidance system being configured to move the aircraft towards a runway. However, Choksi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein altering the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory includes the aircraft guidance system being configured to move the aircraft towards a runway (See at least [0025] of Choksi – “…The flight management system 116 may then receive taxiing instructions from the selected data input source(s). The taxiing instructions may include the path of the aircraft from the gate to the runway, along with any pre-programmed stops on the way…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Choksi teaches an aircraft taxiing system that determines instructions to move an aircraft to a runway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of the aircraft guidance system being configured to move the aircraft towards a runway as taught by Choksi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guide the aircraft to a runway for a pre-takeoff phase as specified in at least [0025] of Choksi. Furthermore, Liu also fails to specifically disclose wherein a runway incursion protection system prevents the aircraft from moving onto the runway by instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway. However, Dame, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a runway incursion protection system prevents the aircraft from moving onto the runway by instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway (See at least [0104] of Dame – “… Similarly, the computing system 102 can use the sign 332 to determine that the aircraft 202 should temporarily stop until further sensor data confirms that the runway is free for the aircraft 202 to use…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Dame teaches an aircraft system that determines instructions for the aircraft to stop before entering the runway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway as taught by Dame, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have sensors confirm that the runway is free for the aircraft to use as specified in at least [0104] of Dame. For claim 10, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuit is configured to receive an input from a pilot and co-pilot of the aircraft or from the pilot and an airline operational center (OCC), the input overriding the runway incursion protection system and allowing the aircraft to move onto the runway. However, Choksi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to receive an input from a pilot and co-pilot of the aircraft or from the pilot and an airline operational center (OCC), the input overriding the runway incursion protection system and allowing the aircraft to move onto the runway (See at least [0019] of Choksi – “… A data source selection module 122 may determine which navigational data input sources are to be used by the FMS 116. Selection may be made by the pilot manually or may be made automatically the FMS 116 to provide the flight control system 102 with the most accurate guidance commands to guide the aircraft along the taxi route the aircraft is to take and conditions and potential incursions along the way. Data sources from which the selection may be made may include… runway incursion advisories from RAAS and airport map data used by the FMS 116… the pilot may manually deselect a data source if the pilot believes that its data is suspect as might occur, for example, if maintenance personnel advise the pilot that there is a problem with one of the sources… Pilot-entered values may override these sources…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Choksi teaches an aircraft taxiing system that allows a pilot to override runway incursions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of a pilot input overriding the runway incursion protection system and allowing the aircraft to move onto the runway as taught by Choksi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to override navigational data if the pilot suspects that there is a problem with the data as specified in at least [0019] of Choksi. For claim 19, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein altering the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory includes moving the aircraft towards a runway. However, Choksi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein altering the trajectory of the aircraft to the revised trajectory includes moving the aircraft towards a runway (See at least [0025] of Choksi – “…The flight management system 116 may then receive taxiing instructions from the selected data input source(s). The taxiing instructions may include the path of the aircraft from the gate to the runway, along with any pre-programmed stops on the way…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Choksi teaches an aircraft taxiing system that determines instructions to move an aircraft to a runway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of moving the aircraft towards a runway as taught by Choksi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to guide the aircraft to a runway for a pre-takeoff phase as specified in at least [0025] of Choksi. Furthermore, Liu also fails to specifically disclose wherein a runway incursion protection system prevents the aircraft from moving onto the runway by instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway. However, Dame, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a runway incursion protection system prevents the aircraft from moving onto the runway by instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway (See at least [0104] of Dame – “… Similarly, the computing system 102 can use the sign 332 to determine that the aircraft 202 should temporarily stop until further sensor data confirms that the runway is free for the aircraft 202 to use…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Dame teaches an aircraft system that determines instructions for the aircraft to stop before entering the runway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of instructing the aircraft guidance system to stop the aircraft before the aircraft enters the runway as taught by Dame, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to have sensors confirm that the runway is free for the aircraft to use as specified in at least [0104] of Dame . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro, Choksi, and Dame , as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Saptharishi et al. US 20220406194 A1 (“Saptharishi”) . For claim 9, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuit is configured to receive a clearance to move the aircraft onto the runway from a pilot of the aircraft in response to an air traffic control (ATC) server communicating the clearance to the pilot. However, Saptharishi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to receive a clearance to move the aircraft onto the runway from a pilot of the aircraft in response to an air traffic control (ATC) server communicating the clearance to the pilot (See at least [0060]-[0061] of Saptharishi – “… transcription analyzer 230 and/or the transcription augmentation process 300 automatically determines the runway identifier that was expected to be provided in the received ATC clearance communication (e.g., based on the runway the identified aircraft BA1752 is currently on or taxing towards) and augments the transcription of the received ATC clearance communication to include the runway identifier in addition to the traffic call sign (e.g., “Follow Traffic BA1752 on Runway 28…. a pilot may exercise increased caution and/or initiate one or more remedial actions with respect to the received audio communication (e.g., by requesting clarification or confirmation of the runway …”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Saptharishi teaches an air traffic control system that provides clearance and communication for a pilot to move an aircraft into a runway. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of receive a clearance to move the aircraft onto the runway from a pilot of the aircraft in response to an air traffic control (ATC) server communicating the clearance to the pilot as taught by Saptharishi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to move the aircraft towards the runway and have the pilot request clarification for the clearance as specified in at least [0060]-[0061] of Saptharishi . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sinha et al. US 20200349855 A1 (“Sinha”) . For claim 12, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein accessing the geographic map includes the processing circuit being configured to communicate with an airport entity to access the geographic map, wherein the airport entity includes an Air Traffic Control (ATC) computing device or an Operations Control Center (OCC) computing device. However, Sinha, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein accessing the geographic map includes the processing circuit being configured to communicate with an airport entity to access the geographic map, wherein the airport entity includes an Air Traffic Control (ATC) computing device or an Operations Control Center (OCC) computing device (See at least [0045] of Sinha – “… the single integrated display 500, as illustrated in FIG. 5, provided on a user interface (e.g., user interface 866, as described in connection with FIG. 8) can receive a selection of a portion of the airport map 502 from an ATC controller…”). Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Sinha teaches an air traffic control system that provides an airport map. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of a processing circuit being configured to communicate with an airport entity to access the geographic map, wherein the airport entity includes an Air Traffic Control (ATC) computing device as taught by Sinha, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the airport map to a user as specified in at least [0045] of Sinha . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Nutaro , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naiman et al. US 20230057709 A1 (“Naiman”) . For claim 13, Liu fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuit is further configured to cancel the guidance order and thereby end alteration of the trajectory of the aircraft in response to receiving dual inputs to override the guidance order, wherein the dual inputs include inputs from any of: both pilots of the aircraft; one pilot and an air traffic control (ATC) system; or one pilot and an operations control center (OCC) system; wherein the automated taxiing system further comprises a user interface with which pilots can interact and is configured to receive instructions from the pilots of the aircraft to request that the guidance order be overridden; and wherein the automated taxiing system is configured to receive electronic messages from the ATC system and/or the OCC system which provide confirmation that the guidance order can be overridden. However, Naiman, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to cancel the guidance order and thereby end alteration of the trajectory of the aircraft in response to receiving dual inputs to override the guidance order (See at least Claim 18 of Naiman – “… determining a second flight command with the autonomous computing system of the … determining a pilot override of the second flight command with the pilot validation interface, the pilot override comprising a third flight command; and in response to determining the pilot override, automatically facilitating execution of the third flight command...”) , wherein the dual inputs include inputs from any of: both pilots of the aircraft; one pilot and an air traffic control (ATC) system (See at least Claim 18 of Naiman – “… determining a second flight command with the autonomous computing system of the aircraft using the set of pre-trained models of the autonomous computing system… determining a pilot override of the second flight command with the pilot validation interface, the pilot override comprising a third flight command...”) ; or one pilot and an operations control center (OCC) system; wherein the automated taxiing system further comprises a user interface with which pilots can interact and is configured to receive instructions from the pilots of the aircraft to request that the guidance order be overridden (See at least Claim 18 of Naiman – “… providing the second flight command at a pilot validation interface; determining a pilot override of the second flight command with the pilot validation interface, the pilot override comprising a third flight command; and in response to determining the pilot override, automatically facilitating execution of the third flight command....”) ; and wherein the automated taxiing system is configured to receive electronic messages from the ATC system and/or the OCC system which provide confirmation that the guidance order can be overridden (See at least Claim 18 of Naiman – “… receiving the second flight command at the API; providing the second flight command at a pilot validation interface; determining a pilot override of the second flight command with the pilot validation interface, the pilot override comprising a third flight command; and in response to determining the pilot override, automatically facilitating execution of the third flight command...”) . Thus, Liu discloses a taxiing system for an aircraft that detects objects and hazards existing in a taxiway of an airport, updates map information associated with the positions and trajectories of the detected objects in the taxiway, predicts paths for an own aircraft and the detected objects, estimates a potential collision risk between the own aircraft and an obstruction, and displays the risk of collision to flight crew members, while Naiman teaches a flight processing system that processes flight command requests from a computing system and a pilot using an interface, and executes a pilot override when multiple inputs are provided. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated taxiing system, method, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium as disclosed in Liu to include the feature of a user interface with which pilots can interact and is configured to receive instructions from the pilots of the aircraft to request that the guidance order be overridden as taught by Naiman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to override and facilitate a command intended by the pilot as specified in at least Claim 18 of Naiman. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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. /M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 11 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 12 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 17 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 18 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 19 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 20 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 21 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 22 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 23 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 24 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 25 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 26 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 27 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 28 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 29 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 30 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 31 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 32 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 33 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 34 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 35 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 36 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 37 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 38 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 39 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 40 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 41 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 42 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 43 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 44 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 19/211,920 Page 45 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights