ADB Safegate Sweden AB
[2024] APO 24
•21 June 2024
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
ADB Safegate Sweden AB [2024] APO 24
Patent Application: 2022201028
Title:Control system at an airport
Patent Applicant: ADB Safegate Sweden AB
Delegate: Tim Gillett
Decision Date: 21 June 2024
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 3 April 2024
Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – inventive step – manner of manufacture – airport gate assignment and control system– estimated arrival time – flight plan – not a manner of manufacture – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the Applicant: Michael Buck IP
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2022201028
Title:Control system at an airport
Patent Applicant: ADB Safegate Sweden AB
Date of Decision: 21 June 2024
DECISION
The claims of the application, as proposed to be amended are not for a manner of manufacture. I cannot see any subject matter in the specification which could be used to overcome this issue.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2022201028 (‘the present application’) was filed on 16 February 2022 in the name of ADB Safegate Sweden AB (‘the Applicant’). It is a divisional application with parent application 2018274586 (‘the parent’) being the national phase entry of PCT/EP2018/063299.
Three examination reports have been issued for the present application with each report asserting that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture and not inventive. A further four examination reports have been issued for the parent with similar issues noted.
Amendments to the specification have been proposed on 9 August 2023. No objection has been taken to these amendments during examination and I cannot see any reason for which they would not be allowable. All further references to the specification will be to that as proposed to be amended on 9 August 2023.
The Applicant requested to be heard on 22 September 2023 and provided submissions on 3 April 2024 as requested.
The examination of the present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (‘the Act’) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (‘the Raising the Bar Act’) as the application was filed after 15 April 2013. Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application (subsection 49(2)).
Description
The application is directed toward identifying when incoming aircraft will arrive at the gate of an airport. The specification provides a background section as follows which I found useful:
Before every flight, a flight plan is created and filed with the local Civil Aviation Authority. The flight plan is a document indicating the plane's planned route or flight path. It generally includes basic information such as departure and arrival points, estimated time en route, alternative airports in case of bad weather, type of flight (whether instrument flight rules or visual flight rules apply), the pilot's information, number of people on board and information about the aircraft itself.
The flight plan is static and is not adapted or amended during the flight. As an example, wind blowing from a particular direction on the runway might result in the aircraft arriving to the gate ahead of the flight plan due to shorter time on the taxiway. In order to timely dispatch and efficiently allocate and use resources it's desirable to predict the actual arrival time of an aircraft with an accuracy of about one minute. A problem with not having the desired accuracy is that resources are not allocated efficiently. In practice it results in the gate crew being idle waiting or coming too late to the gate to receive and service the aircraft.
A problem associated with the aircraft not travelling exactly in accordance with the flight plan might be that the aircraft ends up at the wrong gate since the pilot sees an active display on the way to the gate and does not realize that it is not the scheduled gate. All resources, e.g. luggage, passengers, and ground personal, that had been prepared for the aircraft are now at the wrong gate. The same goes for another aircraft i.e. the aircraft that was actually scheduled for that gate. The problem also continues into the scheduled departure of the two aircrafts. If a domestic aircraft ends up at an international gate or the other way around the problem increases even further.
I take from this that flight plans are well known as is the need to prepare an airport for incoming aircraft. A problem exists in that aircraft arriving earlier or later than scheduled can be disruptive, which is plain to understand; people and/or resources are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The specification notes a key difference between the prior art and the present invention on page 2 with:
In the prior art, the preparation of the gate is related to the flight plan. According to claim 1, the gate is prepared in response to a signal from the control unit depending on if the aircraft is within the predetermined distance from the designated gate. An advantage with this is that the preparation of the gate can be adapted to changes in arrival time of the aircraft, also changes that are not accounted for in the flight plan. This would increase the efficiency and safety at the airport.
The specification addresses ways in which the arrival time can be estimated and offers the following on page 3:
The estimated travel time may be calculated based on an expected taxi time of the aircraft. The taxi time may be defined as the total time of transporting the aircraft from the runway to the gate and may encompass also the time spent on the runway, i.e. the time from when the aircraft touches ground to when the aircraft enters a connecting taxiway. The estimated travel time may be calculated based on one or more from the list of: airport size, airport design, weather conditions, performance of the aircraft, how often the aircraft needs to restart, queue on the taxiway.
10. Further the following is stated on page 4:
In these embodiments, the control unit may be arranged to provide a signal to a gate control system at the designated gate before the aircraft touches ground. In other words, the control unit may be arranged to provide a signal to a gate control system at the designated gate while the aircraft is in the air. This can be advantageous for small airports with short travel distance between runway and gate.
11. Further again, the following is stated on page 11:
…By way of example, it may be statistically known that the average travel time from the runway to the gate at a specific airport is e.g. 5 minutes during certain weather conditions. The control unit may then introduce a 4-minute delay in the signal to the control system in order to provide a just-in-time preparation of the gate.
12. I understand that the system provides a dynamically updated gate arrival time for the aircraft. It is clear that this could be based on a range of information including location, whether the aircraft has landed, and estimated taxi time just to list a few.
13. The specification moves on to discuss ADS-B multilateration, primary and secondary surveillance radar as well as the Visual Docking Guidance System (VDGS). Little detail is provided about how these systems work; however, they appear well known to the person skilled in the art. There are Wikipedia pages devoted to both[1] [2] providing some background as to how these systems work.
[1] Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast - Wikipedia 1 May 2017 update.
[2] Stand guidance system - Wikipedia 13 November 2016 update.
14. A further problem is identified in relation to VDGS whereby the system could guide the wrong aircraft. Figure 2a below illustrates this issue wherein aircraft 400b is physically located in front of aircraft 400a. If this was not the originally intended order, directions intended for 400a could instead be provided to 400b. This is also discussed on page 9 as follows:
In Fig. 2a has gate 300a not yet been prepared for aircraft 400a. This is advantageous since the pilot of aircraft 400b is then not confused by, e.g. display 130a being lit. This reduces the risk of the pilot of aircraft 400b steering aircraft 400b to gate 300a.
Claims
15. The application includes 9 claims with 1 and 7 being independent. Claim 1 is directed toward “A system for preparing a docking procedure of an aircraft in an airport” with claim 7 directed toward a method of the same. Claim 1 reads:
1. A system for preparing a docking procedure of an aircraft in an airport, the system comprising:
an input unit in communication with an airport surveillance system providing identification data for the aircraft on ground and position data indicating a position of the aircraft, and
a control unit receiving, from the input unit, the identification data for the aircraft on ground, the position data indicating a position of the aircraft, and, providing the identification data to a data storage and receiving an identifier of a designated gate for the aircraft from the data storage,
wherein, the control unit further provides a signal to a gate control system at the designated gate instructing the gate control system to prepare the designated gate to receive the aircraft, wherein the preparing the designated gate comprises the gate control system activating a visual docking guidance system,
wherein the control unit further delays the signal to the gate control system by a certain amount of time based on an estimated travel time of the aircraft from the position of the aircraft to the designated gate.
16. The system of claim 1 comprises an input unit and a control unit. Each must perform various functions which are laid out plainly. Other elements of the claim such as the gate control system are not defined to be a part of the claimed system per se leaving some uncertainty as to the precise scope of the claim. However, noting that it will not impact my decision in any meaningful way I do not intend to address this.
The Examiner’s objection – Manner of Manufacture
17. Objections 5 and 6 remain outstanding from the third examination report. I intend to address objection number 5 first which is that claims 1-9 do not define a manner of manufacture. The objection refers to objections made in previous reports and then addresses whether there is a technical problem or technical solution.
18. The examiner’s position can be summarised briefly with comments made in examination report number one which read:
After weighing up these factors, I have concluded that the claimed invention, as a matter of substance, does not relate to patentable subject matter.
This is because the substance of the claimed invention merely constitutes a computer-implemented scheme (i.e. a set of steps and rules) to delay the provision of an activation signal to a gate control system at a designated gate until an aircraft is within a predetermined distance from the gate. The problem identified above has not been solved by any technical ingenuity.
The Applicant’s submissions – Manner of Manufacture
19. The Applicant has submitted that manner of manufacture should be approached in a two-part assessment as follows:
… As such, the question to be answered, at least initially, is whether the invention solves a technical problem at all. If answered in the affirmative, the subsequent question is whether that technical problem lies within the computer (i.e., a technical problem in the field of computer technology) or outside the computer (i.e., in another technical field). The answer to this question then informs the analysis to be undertaken.
20. The Applicant discussed the problem being addressed and summarises with:
In summary, the above presents points of technical weakness in existing systems that can expose the airport to problems with aircraft gate allocation and docking that can be both dangerous and costly.
The Examiner appears to believe the claims only solve some sort of administrative issue but the problems addressed by the invention are both technical and logistical problems present in the art of airport gate management.
21. The Applicant addresses how the present invention uses data to dynamically calculate aircraft arrival time and summarises that solution with:
Overall, the solution provided in the specification addresses the technical problem by leveraging real-time data integration and adaptive algorithms to optimize gate preparations and enhance the efficiency and safety of aircraft docking procedures at airports.
Legal principles – Manner of Manufacture
22. Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 states:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a)is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;
23. The broad principles to consider regarding manner of manufacture have been set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67 (‘NRDC’). At [14]:
The right question is: “Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?”
24. Further guidance was provided in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (‘Myriad’) to look for the substance of the invention. This is reflected in [87] and [88] by the majority and repeated by the minority at [144] quite succinctly:
Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.
25. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ‘16) summarised considerations appearing in Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (‘Research Affiliates’), and Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (‘RPL’) at [35] which are relevant to assessing whether a computer-implemented invention, is in substance, a manner of manufacture as follows:
I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
othere must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
ois the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
odoes the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
odoes the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
odoes the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
ocan it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
odoes the method merely require generic computer implementation;
ois the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
ois there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
odoes the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and
odoes the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.
26. I note that later Full Court decisions including Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (‘Encompass’), and Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223 (‘Repipe’) have not diverted from this approach in any meaningful way.
27. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (17 August 2022) (‘Aristocrat ‘22’) left previous Full Court decisions in the area of manner of manufacture undisturbed.
Considerations
28. The Applicant has suggested a two-step test for assessing manner of manufacture, firstly asking “whether the invention solves a technical problem at all” followed by “If answered in the affirmative, the subsequent question is whether that technical problem lies within the computer”. I acknowledge that these questions are relevant to assessing manner of manufacture without necessarily being exhaustive, noting that these form a subset of the relevant considerations from Aristocrat ‘16. Given that, it is appropriate for me to begin with these before expanding to other relevant considerations from Aristocrat ‘16.
Does the invention solve a technical problem?
29. The Applicant has submitted the following in relation to the problem being solved:
… The primary technical problem identified in the Background of the specification is that current flight planning systems rely on static flight plans that do not dynamically adjust to real-time factors such as wind conditions, taxiway traffic, or unforeseen delays, leading to inaccurate arrival time predictions. Thus, gate assignments are based solely on these static flight plans, leading to potential mismatches between aircraft arrival times and gate preparations. As a result, inefficient resource allocation and potential gate assignment errors result in operational inefficiencies, idle time for gate crews, and safety risks during aircraft docking procedures.
30. “that current flight planning systems rely on static flight plans that do not dynamically adjust to real-time factors” is not necessarily a technical problem but instead an umbrella under which both technical and non-technical problems may exist. What causes current systems function this way? Is there a technical issue preventing dynamic adjustments or is it simply that no one has seen business value in the integration? That is, is there a fundamental technical limitation that needs to or has been overcome to enable real-time data or is it just that it has become desirable to do so for business reasons. This point has not been addressed by the specification or submissions.
31. Somewhat tangentially, I have noted that there is a difference between the Applicant’s submissions and the specification. For example, “gate assignments are based solely on these static flight plans” [emphasis added] compared with page 2 line 30 of the specification “In the prior art, the preparation of the gate is related to the flight plan” [emphasis added].
32. Most people have attended an airport and observed the dreaded words “Delayed” on an arrivals board. Without knowing anything further about gate allocation systems, it is plain that they aren’t based solely on static flight plans otherwise this type of message would not be available. The aircraft simply wouldn’t turn up on time.
33. Accepting that gate allocation is related to the flight plan, it seems highly likely that other information is available to the system too. What information that is and whether it is automated or by manual entry I do not know, but in either case, there does not seem to be a technical limitation preventing inclusion of more dynamic information.
Does the claimed invention provide a technical solution to the problem?
34. Whereas prior art systems are based on the flight plan, the specification proposes bringing other information into the gate control system; ADS-B data. I note that there is no suggestion that the ADS-B data itself is new though.
35. The Applicant has submitted the following asserting that the claimed solution is technical:
The claims provide a technical solution that utilises a combination of real-time data integration, adaptive gate preparation algorithms, dynamically optimised gate activation and preparation which ultimately provides enhanced accuracy and efficiency of the technical system.
36. The specification does not address how to integrate these systems such that they dynamically optimise the gate activation. There is no particular disclosure of the algorithms, data integration or gate activation or how these precisely work together to achieve the desired outcome; these details of implementation are left entirely to the skilled addressee. It could reasonably be inferred that this lack of information is because that integration is not the substance of the invention. If it was part of the substance, there would almost certainly be a lack of support because the specification does not tell the reader how to do it.
37. The Applicant has further submitted:
By integrating with the airport surveillance system, utilizing identification and position data, and delaying the gate preparation signal based on estimated travel time, the claimed invention improves the efficiency and accuracy of aircraft docking procedures. It streamlines the gate control and management process, reduces delays, and enhances overall airport operations, leading to smoother aircraft docking and improved passenger experiences. The activation of the visual docking guidance system further assists pilots during the docking process, increasing safety and precision.
38. Notably, these focus on the benefit of the proposed integration without addressing technical details of the solution. I consider that this points to the substance of the invention being the choice to integrate which provides for a more efficient way of organising aircraft at airports rather that the technical details of how to integrate. This is not a technical matter but instead a business decision to optimise business processes.
39. I consider that the solution offered by the specification is non-technical. I will now address some other considerations from Aristocrat ’16.
There must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information
40. The present invention seeks to improve airport gate allocation and resourcing by improving aircraft arrival time estimates. The invention is put into effect by receiving aircraft identification and location information in an input unit which can then be used to determine when the gate should be made available.
41. This is more than simply an abstract idea or intellectual information. It incorporates a specific set of information into a decision-making process which results in a tangible action. However, noting my earlier comments around the problem and solution being non-technical, I consider that it is directed to an improvement in the arrangement of business activities, a scheme.
Does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed?
42. The present invention, whilst being computer implemented does not purport to improve the field of computer technology. As noted by the Applicant in their submissions:
The specification does not purport to improve the field of computer technology or create a new computer and thus there is no reason and evidence to substantiate a conclusion that the claimed invention solves a technical problem that lies within the computer.
43. I note here that the present invention appears to operate on conventional hardware which would typically be found in an airport. That hardware performs similar functions to what it already performs, albeit configured to operate according to different instructions.
Does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result?
44. The result is clearly useful in that there is wasted effort if a gate is prepared at the wrong time. Even if the problem is reformulated as being streamlined access to the ADS-B information which is used, that too is useful.
Does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information?
45. The information which is said to be used already exists. The ADS-B information for aircraft is plainly in possession of air traffic control, but not necessarily provided to the gate control system.
46. I note that the claimed invention comprises an input system which receives this information and then places it into a database. At this point nothing more is being done than moving pre-existing information from one place to another and could reasonably be considered presentation of information.
47. The system also calculates when to signal the gate control system to prepare the arrival gate. This must be some form of transformation of the information, and whilst minor, is enough for the invention to be more than merely presentation of information.
Summary
48. The invention is plainly for more than an abstract idea and the invention is more than presentation of information. Further, there is a practical and useful result which stems from the invention. That is, more reliable information being presented to the gate allocation system. While this presents positively, it does not suggest that the invention is more than administration or a scheme.
49. On the other hand, the information involved already exists and the solution used to incorporate this information is not technical. I consider that this is the substance of the invention, automating the use of the dynamic ADS-B information so gate allocation can be more automated. That is not a technical matter and as such the claims are not for a manner of manufacture.
50. The issues noted are not addressed by any content of the claims or the specification. As such, I do not consider there to be any material which could be added to the invention to overcome this issue, and therefore refusal based on lack of manner of manufacture alone is appropriate.
51. I will briefly note here that inventive step remains outstanding. Noting that my manner of manufacture finding is determinative, I do not intend to make any decision in relation to inventive step.
Conclusion
52. For the above reasons I find that claims 1-9 are not for a manner of manufacture.
53. Further, there is not any subject matter in the specification which could be introduced into the claims to overcome this issue. As such, I refuse the application.
Tim Gillett
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
7
0