DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starr (US 20130321192).
Regarding claim 1, Starr discloses a method for determining at least one at-risk area in an area around an aircraft 102 during an execution of ground operations around and/or on the aircraft, the risk corresponding to a risk of hazard, inside said at-risk area, for personnel operating around and/or on the aircraft (paragraph 13, p. 14),
the method being executed by an at-risk area determination system comprising electronic circuitry (figures 1-4), configured to: upon receipt of a request to determine at least one at-risk area (p. 76):
- obtain first information which is representative of at least one element which is a source of at least one risk (p. 16),
- obtain operational context information which is representative of an operational context of the aircraft during said ground operations (p. 61),
- determine, on the basis of said first information and said operational context information, the at-risk area and a location of the at least one at-at-risk area (figure 2, figure 4, p. 40);
- transmit said location of the at least one at-risk area in order to indicate a presence of the at least one at-risk area in the determined location to personnel operating on and/or around the aircraft during the ground operations (figure 2, figure 4, p. 15, p.49, p. 73).
Regarding claim 2, Starr discloses wherein the risk corresponds to at least one risk among: - a risk associated with a hazard of an explosive atmosphere linked to the kerosene vapors or to the presence of dihydrogen in the atmosphere; - a risk associated with a "mechanical" hazard linked to the actuation of the movable elements of the aircraft including a landing gear or a thrust reversal system (p. 20); - a risk associated with an "engine" hazard linked to a phenomenon of jet blast or ingestion around intake;- a risk associated with an "electrical" hazard linked with an electrical phenomenon around the aircraft (p. 20).
Regarding claim 3, Starr discloses wherein the operational context information is obtained on the basis of a selection from a list of operational scenarios (218, 420) comprising at least one scenario (figure 2, figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Starr discloses wherein the request to determine the at least one at-risk area originates from: - a human-machine interface of a cockpit of said aircraft (p.73), - a human-machine interface which is integrated into the aircraft and can be accessed through a hatch made in the fuselage of the aircraft, or - a human-machine interface of a control center (p. 73).
Regarding claim 5, Starr discloses receiving confirmation of the determination of the at least one at-risk area from: the human-machine interface of the cockpit of the aircraft, the human-machine interface which is integrated into the aircraft and can be accessed through the hatch, or the human-machine interface of the control center (p. 73).
Regarding claim 6, Starr discloses wherein transmitting the location of the at least one at-risk area comprises: transmitting the determined location to equipment on board the aircraft and/or ground support equipment (p. 73).
Regarding claim 7, Starr discloses wherein the equipment on board the aircraft and the ground support equipment are chosen from: - laser emitters (p. 103), - photonic radars, and - sound warning devices (p. 100).
Regarding claim 8, Starr discloses the equipment on board the aircraft and/or ground support equipment displaying an outline of the at least one at-risk area, or a surface area of the at least one at-risk area (figure 4, p. 73).
Regarding claim 9, Starr discloses a system for determining at least one at-risk area in an area around an aircraft 102 during an execution of ground operations around and/or on the aircraft, the risk corresponding to a risk of hazard, inside said at-risk area, for personnel operating around and/or on the aircraft (p. 13, p. 14), the at-risk area determination system comprising electronic circuitry (figures 1-4), configured to: upon receipt of a request to determine at least one at-risk area (p. 76):
- obtain first information which is representative of at least one element which is a source of at least one risk (p. 16),
- obtain operational context information which is representative of an operational context of the aircraft during the ground operations (p. 61),
- determine, on the basis of the first information and the operational context information, the at-risk area and a location of the at least one at-risk area (p. 40, figure 2, figure 4);
- transmit the location of the at least one at-risk area in order to indicate a presence of the at least one at-risk area in the determined location to personnel operating on and/or around the aircraft during the ground operations (figure 2, figure 4, p. 15, p.49, p. 73).
Regarding claim 10, Starr discloses an aircraft 102 comprising the at-risk area determination system (figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 12, Starr discloses a non-transitory storage medium (p. 29, p. 67), storing a computer program comprising instructions causing the method to be executed by a processor when said instructions are read and executed by the processor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bateman, Anderson, Lamkin, Saxena, and James disclose collision avoidance systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH V LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2970. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ANH V LA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
ANH V. LA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
Al
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights