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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18-20, and 41 are currently pending.
2. Claim 41 is new.
3. Claims 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 21-40 are canceled.
4. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. Regarding Claim 7, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood if the second textual object further includes the heading scale AND the alert flag or if the second textual object includes heading scale OR the alert flag. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 7 is interpreted so that the heading scale and alert flag are separate textual objects.
8. Regarding Claim 12, the claim is indefinite because it cannot be clearly understood if the second textual object further includes the heading scale AND the axis scale or if the second textual object includes heading scale OR the axis scale. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim 12 is interpreted so that the heading scale and axis scale are separate textual objects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20160090193 A1), in view of McCauley (US 20030169301 A1), and in further view of Postnikov (US 9619919 B1).
13. Regarding Claim 1, He teaches a primary flight display system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a display device; one or more processors operatively connected to the display device (He: [0025] and [0027]);
And non-transitory machine-readable memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, storing instructions executable by the one or more processors and configured to cause the one or more processors to (He: [0017] and [0026]):
Using data associated with an operation of the aircraft, cause a primary flight display representation to be displayed on the display device, the primary flight display representation including a first text of a first textual object having a first font size (He: [0034] Note that the altitude and speed information are equivalent to the first text of a first textual object having a first font size.);
And cause the primary flight display representation on the display device to include a second text of a second textual object having a second font size, the second font size being… larger than the first font size (He: [0024]),
Wherein the first text of the first textual object and the second text of the second textual object are at least partially superimposed… and wherein the at least partially superimposed first and second texts are simultaneously displayed (He: [0024] and [0034]).
He discloses the claimed invention except for the second font size being 2.5 or more times larger than the first font size. It would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be 2.5 or more times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size.
Additionally, He fails to explicitly teach the second textual object has a transparency level that is commensurate with an alert level associated with the second textual object, such that the first textual object is visible under the second textual object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McCauley teaches varying font sizes for an aircraft display and that the font size can be used to emphasize the information on the display to improve the awareness of the pilots (McCauley: [0006]);
And wherein the second textual object has a transparency level that is commensurate with an alert level associated with the second textual object, such that the first textual object is visible under the second textual object (McCauley: [0006], [0020], and [0023] Note that McCauley explains that de-emphasizing an item (ex: NDB 222) includes increasing the transparency. Also, de-emphasizing items because the item is less important is equivalent to changing the transparency level based on an alert level associated with the textual object. This is further explained in [0026], where it is taught that less important items are de-emphasized.).
He and McCauley are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of providing alerts on a display for pilots of an aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He to incorporate the teachings of McCauley for the second textual object to have a larger font size than the first font size and a different transparency level commensurate with an alert level associated with the second textual object so the first textual object is visible under the second textual object because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots. Changing the transparency level based on the alert level reduces the burden on the pilot to identify textual objects with higher alert levels. This reduced burden increases the awareness of the pilot, which as a result, increases the safety of the aircraft and passengers.
He and McCauley fail to explicitly teach the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the second textual object to be displayed in a display area that comprises an attitude indicator of the primary flight display representation; and wherein the second textual object of the second font size defines a heading scale.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Postnikov teaches the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the second textual object to be displayed in a display area that comprises an attitude indicator of the primary flight display representation (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 49-52] and [Column 6, Lines 12-24] Note that the second textual object displayed in a display area that comprises an attitude indicator is broadly interpreted as the second textual object on the same display as the attitude indicator (see 230 and 342 in Fig. 3, also see Fig. 7).);
The second textual object has a transparent background not obstructing an underlying display around and between characters of the second text of the second textual object upon simultaneous display of the first and second textual objects (Postnikov: [Column 6, Lines 19-24], [Column 6, Lines 57-60], [Column 11, Lines 18-20 and 24-27], and [Column 11, Lines 58-64] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fig. 2 renders the textual objects of the compass 240 over the terrain [not obstructing an underlying display around and between characters of the second text of the second textual object]. This occurs as the first and second textual objects are simultaneously displayed.);
And wherein the second textual object of the second font size defines a heading scale (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 45-52] Note that the compass 240 provides heading information with textual objects. The textual objects that are a part of the compass are a specific font size that is larger [second textual object of the second font size] than other textual objects on the display.).
He, McCauley, and Postnikov are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He and McCauley to incorporate the teachings of Postnikov for the second textual object to be displayed in a display area with an attitude indicator and to have a transparent background not obstructing an underlying display around and between characters of the second textual object upon simultaneous display of the first and second objects because it provides the benefit of displaying valuable information to pilots of an aircraft using a hierarchy of elements presented in a display. This provides the additional benefit of increased situational awareness, which also increases the safety of the pilot/passengers, vehicle, and surroundings.
14. Regarding Claim 2, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further McCauley teaches the second font size is three or more times larger than the first font size (McCauley: [0006] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be three or more times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size. McCauley teaches in [0006] that decreasing the size of the text item de-emphasizes the non-selected item [first font size]. As a result, the ratio between the second and first font size is increased to emphasize the second text.).
15. Regarding Claim 3, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches the second font size is four times larger than the first font size (McCauley: [0006] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be four or more times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size. McCauley teaches in [0006] that decreasing the size of the text item de-emphasizes the non-selected item [first font size]. As a result, the ratio between the second and first font size is increased to emphasize the second text.).
16. Regarding Claim 4, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches the second font size is five times larger than the first font size (McCauley: [0006] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be five or more times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size. McCauley teaches in [0006] that decreasing the size of the text item de-emphasizes the non-selected item [first font size]. As a result, the ratio between the second and first font size is increased to emphasize the second text.).
17. Regarding Claim 5, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches the second font size is between 2.5 and ten times larger than the first font size (McCauley: [0006] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be 2.5 to ten times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size. McCauley teaches in [0006] that decreasing the size of the text item de-emphasizes the non-selected item [first font size]. As a result, the ratio between the second and first font size is increased to emphasize the second text.).
18. Regarding Claim 6, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches the second font size is between three and six times larger than the first font size (McCauley: [0006] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the second font size to be three to six times larger than the first font size absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with any second font size larger than the first font size. McCauley teaches in [0006] that decreasing the size of the text item de-emphasizes the non-selected item [first font size]. As a result, the ratio between the second and first font size is increased to emphasize the second text.).
19. Regarding Claim 7, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, He teaches the second textual object is an alert flag (He: [0024] Note that the alert flag is equivalent to the "unstable" message.).
20. Regarding Claim 9, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Postnikov teaches the second text of the second textual object has a color that is commensurate with the alert level associated with the second textual object (Postnikov: [Column 6, Lines 25-35]).
21. Regarding Claim 11 He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches the second font size of the second text of the second textual object is commensurate with the alert level associated with the second textual object (McCauley: [0006]).
22. Regarding Claim 12, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Postnikov teaches the second textual object defines an axis scale (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 45-52]).
23. Regarding Claim 14, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Postnikov teaches the first and second textual objects are collocated (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 45-52] Note that the first and second textual objects are collocated on the same display.).
24. Regarding Claim 16, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, McCauley teaches one or more characters of the second textual object are partially transparent (McCauley: [0006]).
25. Regarding Claim 18, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Postnikov teaches the second textual object is collocated with a graphical object (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 45-52] Note that the second textual object are collocated on the same display as the terrain graphical object).
26. Regarding Claim 19, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, He teaches the instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to cause a position of the second textual object to be selected based on a current phase of flight of the aircraft (Postnikov: [Column 5, Lines 45-52] Note that the second textual object is displayed in a position on the display based on the current phase of flight. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the position is selected to be the same for each phase of flight. Also, note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art for the position of the second textual object to be selected based on a current phase of flight of the aircraft absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the second textual object in any position on the display.).
27. Regarding Claim 20, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, He teaches an aircraft comprising the system as defined in claim 1 (He: [0006]).
28. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 20160090193 A1), in view of McCauley (US 20030169301 A1), in view of Postnikov (US 9619919 B1), and in further view of Khatwa (US 20160247406 A1).
29. Regarding Claim 41, He, McCauley, and Postnikov remains as applied above in Claim 1.
He, McCauley, and Postnikov fail to explicitly teach to cause the heading scale to be displayed on the display device and extend along a horizon line displayed in the primary flight display representation; and the second textual object of the second font size includes a numerical value defining the heading scale.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Khatwa teaches to cause the heading scale to be displayed on the display device and extend along a horizon line displayed in the primary flight display representation; and the second textual object of the second font size includes a numerical value defining the heading scale (Khatwa: [0014] Note that Fig. 5 displays a heading scale extending in a horizon line. Also, note that Fig. 5 displays the second textual object of the second font size including numerical values defining the scale (e.g., 16, 17, etc.).).
He, McCauley, Postnikov, and Khatwa are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He, McCauley, and Postnikov to incorporate the teachings of Khatwa for the heading scale to extend along a horizon line and the second textual object including numerical values defining a heading scale because it provides the benefit of improving awareness of the pilots and avoiding veering off the correct heading. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers of the aircraft.
Response to Arguments
30. Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
31. First, the Applicant has alleged "even though, Postnikov discloses heading information being disclosed within compass 240, compass 240 does not include second textual object of the second font size defining a heading scale." The Examiner disagrees.
Postnikov teaches that the heading information is displayed within the compass graphical object. In Fig. 2, the compass is provided on the display with textual objects indicating the heading. These textual objects that are a part of the compass 240 are a font size that is larger than other textual objects on the display. Therefore, the textual objects in compass 240 are equivalent to the second textual objects at a second font size.
As currently claimed, there is no indication what the first textual object defines. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first textual object can be any text on the display smaller than the second textual object. For example, in Fig. 2, the second textual objects on the compass 240 are larger than other textual objects on the display (e.g., pitch indicator and other textual objects in intermediate layer 320). In conclusion, Postnikov teaches the second textual object of the second font size defines a heading scale.
Additionally, it appears that the Applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Nonfinal Office Action mailed 7/21/2025, Postnikov was used to disclose the textual object defines a heading scale. McCauley was used to teach changing the size of text to emphasize/de-emphasize the selected items. Thus, Postnikov still teaches the features for which it was cited.
32. He (US 20160090193 A1), in view of McCauley (US 20030169301 A1), in view of Postnikov (US 9619919 B1), and in further view of Khatwa (US 20160247406 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
33. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, and 18-20 remain rejected and Claim 41 is newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
34. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663