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, 4-8, 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 21, 23-24, and 26-30 are currently pending.
2. Claims 29-30 are new.
3. Claims 2-3, 9, 12-13, 16-17, 20, 22, and 25 are canceled.
4. Claims 1, 11, and 26-27 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 23-24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey (8US 20220198945 A1), in view of Suiter (US 20140343765 A1), and in further view of Feyereisen (US 20120072105 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Rey teaches a method of providing contextual three-dimensional imagery to one or more operators of an aircraft comprising: obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including… a current position of the aircraft, a current trajectory of the aircraft… and a target destination of the aircraft (Rey: [0042], [0048], and [0049]);
Retrieving, from a database, building information for buildings located in a flight path area, the flight path area including the current position of the aircraft (Rey: [0023] and [0028]);
(1.) Assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings located in the flight path area based at least in part on the aircraft flight information and the building information… (Rey: [0062] and [0070]);
Rendering each of the buildings… rendering each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings; and displaying, at an interface provided within the aircraft, the… rendering of each of the buildings and the rendering of each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings (Rey: [0062] and [0070]);
And (2.) displaying a graphical element that includes one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building on which the landing pad is located, wherein the one or more pieces of information comprises… a time to landing (Rey: [0063] Note that Fig. 4 displays additional information including time remaining to the landing site.);
Wherein each of the rendered buildings is defined at least in part by a respective visual characteristic of the one or more visual characteristics assigned thereto such that each of the rendered… buildings displayed within… airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual… imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft (Rey: [0062] and [0070] Note that the landing site 330 is depicted in the interface 300 having visual characteristics related to the specific distance and type of landing site for landing site 330.).
Rey fails to explicitly teach obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including a phase of flight of the aircraft… an energy level of the aircraft; determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low; in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low, automatically: (1.)… wherein the assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings comprises: (a.) calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft; and (b.) assigning one of the one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings based at least in part on whether or not the buildings is located within the range of the aircraft, wherein a first building is located within the range of the aircraft and is assigned a first visual characteristic and a second building is located outside of the range of the aircraft and is assigned a second visual characteristic that is different than the first visual characteristic; determining that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from a cruising phase of flight to a landing phase of flight; and in response to the determination that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from the cruising phase of flight to the landing phase of flight, automatically: (1.) displaying an indicator to identify a landing pad on the first building; and (2.) displaying… a number of available landing areas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suiter teaches obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including a phase of flight of the aircraft…an energy level of the aircraft (Suiter: [0047], [0069], and [0105]);
Determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low; in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low, automatically: (1.) assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings located in the flight path area based at least in part on the aircraft flight information and the building information, wherein the assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings comprises (Suiter: [0070] and [0105]):
(a.) calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft (Suiter: [0045] and [0105]);
And (b.) assigning one of the one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings based at least in part on whether or not the buildings is located within the range of the aircraft, wherein a first building is located within the range of the aircraft and is assigned a first visual characteristic and a second building is located outside of the range of the aircraft and is assigned a second visual characteristic that is different than the first visual characteristic… rendering each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings; and displaying, at an interface provided within the aircraft, the… rendering of each of the buildings and the rendering of each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the building (Suiter: [0061], [0091], and [0093] Note that a second landing site located outside the range of the aircraft assigned a second visual characteristic is equivalent to assigning KOMA as red due to its extreme distance from the current position of the aircraft.);
Determining that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from a cruising phase of flight to a landing phase of flight; and in response to the determination that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from the cruising phase of flight to the landing phase of flight, automatically: (1.) displaying an indicator to identify a landing pad on the first building (Suiter: [0070] and [0083]);
And (2.) displaying a graphical element that includes one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building on which the landing pad is located, wherein the one or more pieces of information comprises a number of available landing areas… (Suiter: [0058] Note that landing gates 110b and 110c are equivalent to information comprising a number of available landing areas.)
Rey and Suiter are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control and emergency landings. 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 Rey to incorporate the teachings of Suiter to obtain an energy level of the aircraft to calculate a range of the aircraft and assign visual characteristics to each building based on whether or not the building is located within the range because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots during an emergency landing. This provides the additional benefit of improving the chances of a safe landing in the emergency situation, which as a result, increases the safety of the vehicle, any passengers, and the surroundings.
Rey and Suiter fail to explicitly teach rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions; and displaying… the three-dimensional rendering of each of the buildings… such that each of the rendered three-dimensional buildings displayed within three- dimensional airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual three-dimensional imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feyereisen teaches rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions (Feyereisen: [0031] and [0034]);
And displaying… the three-dimensional rendering of each of the buildings… such that each of the rendered three-dimensional buildings displayed within three- dimensional airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual three-dimensional imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft (Feyereisen: [0022] Note that assigning colors to buildings is equivalent providing contextual three dimensional imagery to the operator of the aircraft because identifying the building type increases the awareness of the environment the aircraft is in. Also, note the buildings are rendered on the interface as shown in Figure 2.).
Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey and Suiter to incorporate the teachings of Feyereisen to render the buildings in three dimensions and render features to provide contextual three dimensional imagery corresponding to the visual characteristics because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of the vehicle operator in an environment with buildings and other objects by color coding the display information. Feyereisen explains in [0030] and [0031] that color coding the three-dimensional data assist the pilots and to increase awareness.
10. Regarding Claim 4, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Rey teaches the aircraft flight information further includes an operating status identified by the aircraft control system, and wherein calculating the range of the aircraft is based at least in part on the operating status (Rey: [0053], [0065], and [0066]).
11. Regarding Claim 5, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Rey teaches the building information for each of the buildings includes the location and dimensions of the building (Rey: [0025], [0031], and [0059]).
12. Regarding Claim 6, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Rey teaches the building information for each of the buildings includes landing information relevant to whether or not the building has a landing pad (Rey: [0028], [0029], and [0062]).
13. Regarding Claim 7, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 6, and further, Rey teaches the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings includes a landing characteristic for each of the buildings, and wherein a landing graphic element is associated with each of the one or more buildings that includes a landing pad (Rey: [0062] and [0070]).
14. Regarding Claim 10, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey does not explicitly teach receiving an operator input, wherein the operator input is a request for additional information about one of the one or more buildings; compiling the building information for the one of the one or more buildings; and displaying, in response to the operator input, a graphic element that includes building information corresponding to the one of the one or more buildings. However, Rey teaches [0032] and [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to request additional information about the buildings, compile building information, and display a graphic element that includes building information as similarly shown in Rey's [0032] and [0063] use of requesting additional for the lake landing zone (pilot selected landing zone) to provide the benefit of displaying additional information to the pilots about the landing location. Note that in the example embodiment, the pilots selected the lake as the landing zone, but it is not limited, as the pilot could have also selected the building landing zone 330, as further explained in [0062]. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness of the pilots, which increases the safety of the vehicle and surroundings.
15. Regarding Claim 11, Rey teaches a system comprising: a display including one or more screens (Rey: [0059]);
A memory storing instructions (Rey: [0060]);
And a processor executing the instructions to perform a process for providing contextual three-dimensional imagery to one or more operators of an aircraft including: obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including… a current position of the aircraft, a current trajectory of the aircraft… and a target destination of the aircraft (Rey: [0042], [0048], and [0049]);
Retrieving, from a database, building information for buildings located in a flight path area, the flight path area including the current position of the aircraft (Rey: [0023] and [0028]);
(1.) Assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings located in the flight path area based at least in part on the aircraft flight information and the building information… (Rey: [0062] and [0070]);
Rendering each of the buildings… rendering each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings; and displaying, at an interface provided within the aircraft, the… rendering of each of the buildings and the rendering of each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings (Rey: [0062] and [0070]);
And (2.) displaying a graphical element that includes one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building on which the landing pad is located, wherein the one or more pieces of information comprises… a time to landing (Rey: [0063] Note that Fig. 4 displays additional information including time remaining to the landing site.);
Wherein each of the rendered buildings is defined at least in part by a respective visual characteristic of the one or more visual characteristics assigned thereto such that each of the rendered… buildings displayed within… airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual… imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft (Rey: [0062] and [0070] Note that the landing site 330 is depicted in the interface 300 having visual characteristics related to the specific distance and type of landing site for landing site 330.).
Rey fails to explicitly teach obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including a phase of flight of the aircraft… an energy level of the aircraft; determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low; in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low, automatically: (1.)… wherein the assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings comprises: (a.) calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft; and (b.) assigning one of the one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings based at least in part on whether or not the buildings is located within the range of the aircraft, wherein a first building is located within the range of the aircraft and is assigned a first visual characteristic and a second building is located outside of the range of the aircraft and is assigned a second visual characteristic that is different than the first visual characteristic; determining that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from a cruising phase of flight to a landing phase of flight; and in response to the determination that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from the cruising phase of flight to the landing phase of flight, automatically: (1.) displaying an indicator to identify a landing pad on the first building; and (2.) displaying… a number of available landing areas.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suiter teaches obtaining, from an aircraft control system, aircraft flight information including a phase of flight of the aircraft…an energy level of the aircraft (Suiter: [0047], [0069], and [0105]);
Determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low; in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low, automatically: (1.) assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings located in the flight path area based at least in part on the aircraft flight information and the building information, wherein the assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings comprises (Suiter: [0070] and [0105]):
(a.) calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft (Suiter: [0045] and [0105]);
And (b.) assigning one of the one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings based at least in part on whether or not the buildings is located within the range of the aircraft, wherein a first building is located within the range of the aircraft and is assigned a first visual characteristic and a second building is located outside of the range of the aircraft and is assigned a second visual characteristic that is different than the first visual characteristic… rendering each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the buildings; and displaying, at an interface provided within the aircraft, the… rendering of each of the buildings and the rendering of each of the one or more visual characteristics assigned to each of the building (Suiter: [0061], [0091], and [0093] Note that a second landing site located outside the range of the aircraft assigned a second visual characteristic is equivalent to assigning KOMA as red due to its extreme distance from the current position of the aircraft.);
Determining that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from a cruising phase of flight to a landing phase of flight; and in response to the determination that the phase of flight of the aircraft had changed from the cruising phase of flight to the landing phase of flight, automatically: (1.) displaying an indicator to identify a landing pad on the first building (Suiter: [0070] and [0083]);
And (2.) displaying a graphical element that includes one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building on which the landing pad is located, wherein the one or more pieces of information comprises a number of available landing areas… (Suiter: [0058] Note that landing gates 110b and 110c are equivalent to information comprising a number of available landing areas.)
Rey and Suiter are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft control and emergency landings. 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 Rey to incorporate the teachings of Suiter to obtain an energy level of the aircraft to calculate a range of the aircraft and assign visual characteristics to each building based on whether or not the building is located within the range because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots during an emergency landing. This provides the additional benefit of improving the chances of a safe landing in the emergency situation, which as a result, increases the safety of the vehicle, any passengers, and the surroundings.
Rey and Suiter fail to explicitly teach rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions; and displaying… the three-dimensional rendering of each of the buildings… such that each of the rendered three-dimensional buildings displayed within three- dimensional airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual three-dimensional imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feyereisen teaches rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions (Feyereisen: [0031] and [0034]);
And displaying… the three-dimensional rendering of each of the buildings… such that each of the rendered three-dimensional buildings displayed within three- dimensional airspace is depicted at the interface as having one or more rendered features configured to provide the contextual three-dimensional imagery corresponding to the respective visual characteristic assigned thereto to the one or more operators of the aircraft (Feyereisen: [0022] Note that assigning colors to buildings is equivalent providing contextual three dimensional imagery to the operator of the aircraft because identifying the building type increases the awareness of the environment the aircraft is in. Also, note the buildings are rendered on the interface as shown in Figure 2.).
Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey and Suiter to incorporate the teachings of Feyereisen to render the buildings in three dimensions and render features to provide contextual three dimensional imagery corresponding to the visual characteristics because it provides the benefit of increasing the awareness of the vehicle operator in an environment with buildings and other objects by color coding the display information. Feyereisen explains in [0030] and [0031] that color coding the three-dimensional data assist the pilots and to increase awareness.
16. Regarding Claim 14, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Rey teaches the aircraft flight information further includes an operating status identified by the aircraft control system, and wherein calculating the range of the aircraft is based at least in part on the operating status (Rey: [0053], [0065], and [0066]).
17. Regarding Claim 15, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Rey teaches the building information for buildings includes: the location and dimensions of each of the buildings (Rey: [0025], [0031], and [0059]).
And landing information relevant to whether or not each of the buildings has a landing pad (Rey: [0028], [0029], and [0062] Note that a skilled practitioner would recognize that some buildings have helicopter pads (ex: hospitals).),
Wherein one of the one or more visual characteristics is an opacity of the buildings, wherein the opacity of the buildings is assigned such that a building of the buildings that includes a landing pad is assigned an opacity that is greater than the opacity assigned to a building of the buildings that does not include a landing pad (Rey: [0062] and [0070] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that potential landing sites may be displayed based on the safety score. Rey explains that the best three options for the landing zone may be displayed. Therefore, the landing zones that are not displayed have zero opacity, or are fully transparent. This is equivalent to the buildings with landing pads have a greater opacity than buildings that do not include landing pads. Rey also explains in [0029] and [0030] that the safety score is determined based on the landing site parameters, where the landing site parameters include buildings and helicopter pads.).
18. Regarding Claim 18, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Rey teaches the aircraft flight information further includes a phase of flight identified by the aircraft control system, and wherein the assigning one or more visual characteristics is based at least in part on the phase of flight (Rey: [0049] and [0065]).
19. Regarding Claim 19, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remains as applied above in Claim 11.
Rey does not explicitly teach receiving an operator input, wherein the operator input is a request for additional information about one of the one or more buildings; compiling the building information for the one of the one or more buildings; and displaying, in response to the operator input, a graphic element that includes building information corresponding to the one of the one or more buildings. However, Rey teaches [0032] and [0063].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to request additional information about the buildings, compile building information, and display a graphic element that includes building information as similarly shown in Rey's [0032] and [0063] use of requesting additional for the lake landing zone (pilot selected landing zone) to provide the benefit of displaying additional information to the pilots about the landing location. Note that in the example embodiment, the pilots selected the lake as the landing zone, but it is not limited, as the pilot could have also selected the building landing zone 330, as further explained in [0062]. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness of the pilots, which increases the safety of the vehicle and surroundings.
20. Regarding Claim 23, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Suiter teaches the first building is a building that has a landing pad and the second building is a building that does not have a landing pad (Suiter: [0091] and [0096] Note that the river 226 is a site without a landing pad so it is rendered red, compared to the field and airport are sites with a landing area.).
21. Regarding Claim 24, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 23, and further, Suiter teaches rendering a graphic element for the first building that has the landing pad, wherein the graphic element comprises one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building (Suiter: [0091] and [0094]).
22. Regarding Claim 29, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Suiter teaches the indicator is an arrow pointing to the landing pad on the first building (Suiter: [0058] Note that it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to indicate paths 202b and 202c to opportunity gates with an arrow 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 indicator being a line indicating the landing site.).
23. Regarding Claim 30, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Suiter teaches the graphical element is positioned in the three-dimensional airspace such that it does not block the first building or other buildings that are important to the aircraft's approach to the first building (Suiter: [0058] Note that the graphical element includes the number of landings which is equivalent to the opportunity gates 110b and 110c. These graphical elements indicating the number of landings does not block any buildings/landings that are important to the aircraft's approach.).
24. Claims 8, 21, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey (US 20220198945 A1), in view of Suiter (US 20140343765 A1), in view of Feyereisen (US 20120072105 A1), and in further view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1).
25. Regarding Claim 8, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen fail to explicitly teach one of the one or more visual characteristics is a respective opacity for each of the buildings, the opacities of the buildings are assigned such that a building of the buildings that includes a landing pad is assigned a first opacity that is greater than a second opacity that is assigned to a building of the buildings that does not include a landing pad, the building of the buildings that includes the landing pad is rendered and displayed, and the building of the buildings that does not include the landing pad is rendered and displayed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanderkamp teaches one of the one or more visual characteristics is a respective opacity for each of the buildings, the opacities of the buildings are assigned such that a building of the buildings that includes a landing pad is assigned a first opacity that is greater than a second opacity that is assigned to a building of the buildings that does not include a landing pad, the building of the buildings that includes the landing pad is rendered and displayed, and the building of the buildings that does not include the landing pad is rendered and displayed (Vanderkamp: [Column 4, Lines 39-46], [Column 10, Lines 34-47], and [Column 11, Lines 57-67] Note that the main embodiment in Vanderkamp teaches that the colors of the high and low risk portions are different. However, [Column 11, Lines 57-67] teaches that the first and second visual characteristic may be modified in other ways. including shading. Shading is equivalent to the opacity because the locations of interest may be shaded to call further attention, but still may be partially transparent so the underlying features remain visible. For example, the location of interest 415 is shaded black, whereas other locations of interest have different gray or white shadings. This difference in shading is equivalent to a first and second opacity that are different from each other because the gray and white shadings may still indicate contour lines (under the shading) to the user, whereas the shading of 415 is completely opaque. Also, note that Figs. 4 and 5 display and render the first and second subset of buildings (locations of interest).).
Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen to incorporate the teachings of Vanderkamp to display and render the first and second buildings including the first and second opacities because it provides the benefit of displaying data regarding locations of interests near an aircraft. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the flight crew members to implement appropriate maneuvers to avoid collisions.
26. Regarding Claim 21, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen fail to explicitly teach identifying a first subset of buildings of the buildings located in the flight path area, wherein each of the first subset of buildings are identified as having a respective building height that is greater than a building height threshold value; identifying a second subset of buildings of the buildings located in the flight path area, wherein each of the second subset of buildings are identified as having a respective building height that is less than the building height threshold value; assigning a third visual characteristic to each of the first subset of buildings; and assigning a fourth visual characteristic to each of the second subset of buildings, wherein the third visual characteristic is a first opacity such that each of the first subset of buildings is displayed at the display as having the first opacity, and wherein the fourth visual characteristic is a second opacity such that each of the second subset of buildings is displayed at the display as having the second opacity, wherein the first opacity is different from the second opacity, and the first subset of buildings and the second subset of buildings are rendered and displayed.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanderkamp teaches identifying a first subset of buildings of the buildings located in the flight path area, wherein each of the first subset of buildings are identified as having a respective building height that is greater than a building height threshold value; identifying a second subset of buildings of the buildings located in the flight path area, wherein each of the second subset of buildings are identified as having a respective building height that is less than the building height threshold value; assigning a third visual characteristic to each of the first subset of buildings; and assigning a fourth visual characteristic to each of the second subset of buildings, wherein the third visual characteristic is a first opacity such that each of the first subset of buildings is displayed at the display as having the first opacity, and wherein the fourth visual characteristic is a second opacity such that each of the second subset of buildings is displayed at the display as having the second opacity, wherein the first opacity is different from the second opacity, and the first subset of buildings and the second subset of buildings are rendered and displayed (Vanderkamp: [Column 4, Lines 39-46], [Column 10, Lines 34-47], and [Column 11, Lines 57-67] Note that the main embodiment in Vanderkamp teaches that the colors of the high and low risk portions are different. However, [Column 11, Lines 57-67] teaches that the first and second visual characteristic may be modified in other ways. including shading. Shading is equivalent to the opacity because the locations of interest may be shaded to call further attention, but still may be partially transparent so the underlying features remain visible. For example, the location of interest 415 is shaded black, whereas other locations of interest have different gray or white shadings. This difference in shading is equivalent to a first and second opacity that are different from each other because the gray and white shadings may still indicate contour lines (under the shading) to the user, whereas the shading of 415 is completely opaque. Also, note that Figs. 4 and 5 display and render the first and second subset of buildings (locations of interest).).
Rey, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey and Feyereisen to incorporate the teachings of Vanderkamp to identify a first and second subset of buildings based on a building threshold value and assign an opacity visual characteristic for the first and second subset of buildings because it provides the benefit of displaying data regarding locations of interests near an aircraft. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the flight crew members to implement appropriate maneuvers to avoid collisions.
27. Regarding Claim 26, Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Vanderkamp teaches the rendering and the displaying, at the display, each building of the second subset of buildings with the opacity that is less than the opacity of the buildings of the first subset of buildings (Vanderkamp: [Column 4, Lines 39-46], [Column 10, Lines 34-47], and [Column 11, Lines 57-67] Note that rendering each building of the second subset of buildings with the opacity that is less than the opacity of the first subset of buildings is equivalent to displaying the terrain at a shading less than opaque (black) for the terrain/buildings below the height threshold.).
28. Regarding Claim 28, Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Feyereisen fail to explicitly teach in an instance in which the aircraft is in the cruising phase of flight: determining a distance between each of the buildings located in the flight path area and a cruising flight path of the aircraft; and neither rendering nor displaying buildings that are more than a predetermined distance from the cruising flight path of the aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanderkamp teaches in an instance in which the aircraft is in the cruising phase of flight: determining a distance between each of the buildings located in the flight path area and a cruising flight path of the aircraft; and neither rendering nor displaying buildings that are more than a predetermined distance from the cruising flight path of the aircraft (Vanderkamp: [Column 4, Lines 39-46] and [Column 11, Lines 57-67] Note that neither render nor displaying buildings that are more than a predetermined distance from the cruising flight path of the aircraft is equivalent to not displaying buildings past the current display area. The predetermined distance is equivalent to the distance from the aircraft to the edge of the display.).
Rey, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey and Feyereisen to incorporate the teachings of Vanderkamp to determine a distance between the buildings and a cruising flight path to not render/display buildings more than a predetermined distance from the cruising flight path of the aircraft because it provides the benefit of displaying data regarding locations of interests near an aircraft for increased awareness of the pilots.
29. Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rey (US 20220198945 A1), in view of Suiter (US 20140343765 A1), in view of Feyereisen (US 20120072105 A1), in view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1), and in further view of Munns (US 20150332593 A1).
30. Regarding Claim 27, Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp fail to explicitly teach the determining to not display, at the display, each building of the second subset of buildings.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Munns teaches the determining to not display, at the display, each building of the second subset of buildings (Munns: [0038]).
Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, Vanderkamp, and Munns are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation displays and aircraft control. 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 Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, and Vanderkamp to incorporate the teachings of Munns to determine to not display each target because it provides the benefit of decluttering displayed targets due to the height proximity of the aircraft. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the pilots by suppressing information that is not currently vital for the pilots to safety control the aircraft. Munns teaches the benefit of not displaying each target based on the height threshold and Vanderkamp teaches that the process can be used for different locations of interests including terrain, buildings, and other aircraft.
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
32. First, the Applicant has alleged "Suiter…does not disclose automatically assigning the one of the one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings based at least in part on whether the buildings is located within range of the aircraft in response to the determination that the energy level is low." The Examiner disagrees.
Suiter teaches in in at least [0070] that the present invention may suggest emergency landings and advise the pilots of procedures for potential airports to land. The emergency situation may occur either in a cruising phase or immediately after takeoff. Therefore, Suiter determines the visual characteristics for an emergency landing in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low because it occurs for the situation immediately after takeoff. The present invention suggesting an emergency landing when the aircraft experiences an emergency immediately after takeoff is equivalent to automatically assigning visual characteristics to the landing locations. Further, in [0091] and [0093] of Suiter, it is explained that a list of potential landing sites is displayed using a green/yellow/red color scheme when the divert option is available. This is equivalent to automatically assigning visual characteristics to each of the landing sites.
33. Second, the Applicant has alleged "neither Rey, Suiter, nor Feyereisen discloses displaying an indicator to identify a landing pad on the first building; and displaying a graphical element that includes one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building on which the landing pad is located, wherein the one or more pieces of information comprises a number of available landing areas and a time to landing." The Examiner disagrees.
Rey teaches in [0063] and Fig. 4 that there may be additional information displayed on the landing site. This includes a time to landing (see Fig. 4). Additionally, Suiter teaches in [0058] to display the available landing areas for the landing site by indicating opportunity gates 110b and 110c. Further, Suiter teaches in at least Fig. 14 an indicator to identify the runway by rendering a "1" on runway 208. The display also renders the opportunity gate(s) to indicate the landing site.
Therefore, Rey and Suiter teach the displaying the graphical elements that include relevant information. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the information displayed in Rey and Suiter because it gives the pilot additional important information during an emergency landing situation in order to improve situational awareness.
34. Rey (US 20220198945 A1), in view of Suiter (US 20140343765 A1), in view of Feyereisen (US 20120072105 A1), in view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1), and in further view of Munns (US 20150332593 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.
35. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 14-15, 18-19, 21, 23-24, and 26-27 remain rejected and Claims 28-30 are 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
36. 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.
38. 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
Prosecution Insights