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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 21, 24, and 26-36 are currently pending.
3. Claims 31-36 are new.
4. Claims 2-3, 5, 9, 12-20, 22-23, and 25 are canceled.
5. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 24 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 3/23/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 24, 29-30, 33, and 35-36 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 Pippard (US 20190310105 A1).
11. 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, an energy level 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]);
Determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low but remaining, wherein the energy level of the aircraft is based on a power or fuel level remaining (Rey: [0015] and [0048]);
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 (Rey: [0062] and [0070]):
(a.) Calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft (Rey: [0048]);
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… wherein the phase of flight of the aircraft is a cruising phase of flight, a landing phase of flight, or an unplanned emergency landing phase of flight… (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… wherein the phase of flight of the aircraft is a cruising phase of flight, a landing phase of flight, or an unplanned emergency landing phase of flight (Suiter: [0069] and [0105]);
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: [0011], [0061], and [0070]):
(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] Note that Suiter’s emergency landing after a diversion from the initial flight path is equivalent to changing to a landing phase of flight. An emergency landing is a type of landing phase.);
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 such that their relative heights are rendered; displaying… the three-dimensional rendering each of the buildings, including each building's relative height… 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, Pippard teaches rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions such that their relative heights are rendered; displaying, at an interface provided within of the aircraft, the three-dimensional rendering each of the buildings, including each building's relative height… (Pippard: [0046] and [0089] Note the height profile displayed (510) of the scene on the ground is equivalent to displaying each buildings relative height.);
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 (Pippard: [0046] and [0089]).
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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 Pippard to render each of the buildings in three dimensions including each buildings relative height and render features to provide contextual three dimensional imagery corresponding to the visual characteristics because it provides the benefit of presenting all relevant information for navigation and operation to be displaying to aircraft operator, as explicitly explained in [0006] and [0012] of Pippard.
12. Regarding Claim 4, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Rey teaches the building information for each of the buildings includes a respective location and respective dimensions of the building (Rey: [0025] and [0059]),
And wherein 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]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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]).
15. Regarding Claim 10, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further Rey teaches 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 (Rey: [0032] and [0063] Note that Rey’s use of requesting additional for the lake landing zone (pilot selected landing zone) is equivalent to an operator request for additional information about the buildings, compiling the building information, and displaying a graphical element. Also, 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].).
16. 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, an energy level 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]);
Determining that the energy level of the aircraft is low but remaining, wherein the energy level of the aircraft is based on a power or fuel level remaining (Rey: [0015] and [0048]);
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 (Rey: [0062] and [0070]):
(a.) Calculating a range of the aircraft based at least in part on the energy level of the aircraft (Rey: [0048]);
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… wherein the phase of flight of the aircraft is a cruising phase of flight, a landing phase of flight, or an unplanned emergency landing phase of flight… (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… wherein the phase of flight of the aircraft is a cruising phase of flight, a landing phase of flight, or an unplanned emergency landing phase of flight (Suiter: [0069] and [0105]);
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: [0011], [0061], and [0070]):
(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] Note that Suiter’s emergency landing after a diversion from the initial flight path is equivalent to changing to a landing phase of flight. An emergency landing is a type of landing phase.);
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 such that their relative heights are rendered; displaying… the three-dimensional rendering each of the buildings, including each building's relative height… 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, Pippard teaches rendering each of the buildings in three dimensions such that their relative heights are rendered; displaying, at an interface provided within of the aircraft, the three-dimensional rendering each of the buildings, including each building's relative height… (Pippard: [0046] and [0089] Note the height profile displayed (510) of the scene on the ground is equivalent to displaying each buildings relative height.);
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 (Pippard: [0046] and [0089]).
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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 Pippard to render each of the buildings in three dimensions including each buildings relative height and render features to provide contextual three dimensional imagery corresponding to the visual characteristics because it provides the benefit of presenting all relevant information for navigation and operation to be displaying to aircraft operator, as explicitly explained in [0006] and [0012] of Pippard.
17. Regarding Claim 24, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 23, 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.).
And wherein the method further comprises 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]).
18. Regarding Claim 29, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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.).
19. Regarding Claim 30, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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.).
20. Regarding Claim 33, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Suiter teaches when the phase of flight of the aircraft is the unplanned emergency landing phase of flight, reassigning the one or more visual characteristics such that buildings identified as nearest emergency landing locations are visually distinguished from other buildings in the flight path area (Suiter: [0061], [0091], and [0093]).
21. Regarding Claim 35, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Rey teaches the building information displayed in the graphic element includes a building name, an indication of whether the building has a landing pad, an indication of whether the building has a charging station, and an indication of whether service personnel are available at the building (Rey: [0052] and [0059]).
22. Regarding Claim 36, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 24, and further, Rey teaches the one or more pieces of information relevant to the landing pad or the first building comprise an indication of whether service personnel are available at the first building (Rey: [0059]).
23. Claims 8, 21, 26, 28, and 32 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 Pippard (US 20190310105 A1), and in further view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1).
24. Regarding Claim 8, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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, Pippard, 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 Pippard 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.
25. Regarding Claim 21, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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, Suiter, and Pippard 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.
26. Regarding Claim 26, Rey, Suiter, Pippard, 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.).
27. Regarding Claim 28, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard 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, Suiter, Pippard, 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 Pippard 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.
28. Regarding Claim 32, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard fail to explicitly teach the first visual characteristic applied to the first building comprises a luminescent or blinking effect, and the second visual characteristic applied to the second building lacks the luminescent or blinking effect.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanderkamp teaches the first visual characteristic applied to the first building comprises a luminescent or blinking effect, and the second visual characteristic applied to the second building lacks the luminescent or blinking effect (Vanderkamp: [Column 11, Lines 60-67]).
Rey, Suiter, Pippard, 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 Pippard to incorporate the teachings of Vanderkamp for the visual characteristic to comprise a luminescent or blinking effect because it provides the benefit of modifying a terrain (building) portion in a variety of way to call attention to locations of interest for the user, as explicitly explained in [Column 3, Lines 47-50] and [Column 11, Lines 60-67] of Vanderkamp.
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 Pippard (US 20190310105 A1), in view of Vanderkamp (US 9387938 B1), and in further view of Munns (US 20150332593 A1).
30. Regarding Claim 27, Rey, Suiter, Pippard, and Vanderkamp remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Rey, Suiter, Pippard, 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, Pippard, 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, Pippard, 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.
31. Claim 31 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 Pippard (US 20190310105 A1), and in further view of Brulle-Drews (US 20060061586 A1).
32. Regarding Claim 31, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard fail to explicitly teach assigning the one or more visual characteristics comprises adjusting at least one color assigned to a building based on an operator-selected preference including avoidance of colors the operator is unable to distinguish.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Brulle-Drews teaches assigning the one or more visual characteristics comprises adjusting at least one color assigned to a building based on an operator-selected preference including avoidance of colors the operator is unable to distinguish (Brulle-Drews: [0037] and [0039]).
Rey, Suiter, Pippard, and Brulle-Drews 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 Pippard to incorporate the teachings of Brulle-Drews to adjust at least one color assigned to a building based on an operator-selected preference including avoidance of colors the operator is unable to distinguish because it provides the benefit of providing differentiating in colors for users with color blindness, as explicitly explained in [0008] and [0039] of Brulle-Drews.
33. Claim 34 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 Pippard (US 20190310105 A1), and in further view of Nguyen Kim (US 9702722 B2).
34. Regarding Claim 34, Rey, Suiter, and Pippard remain as applied above in Claim 10.
Rey, Suiter, and Pippard fail to explicitly teach the operator input comprises a voice command identifying the one of the buildings.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nguyen Kim teaches the operator input comprises a voice command identifying the one of the buildings (Nguyen Kim: [Column 1, Lines 34-40] and [Column 9, Lines 28-38]).
Rey, Suiter, Pippard, and Nguyen Kim 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 Pippard to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen Kim to comprise a voice command because it provides the benefit of an additional type of user input and to control the 3D previews of the buildings at convenient or safe times. as explicitly explained in [Column 1, Lines 34-40] of Nguyen Kim.
Response to Arguments
35. Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
36. First, the Applicant has alleged “none of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose ‘retrieving, from a database, building information for buildings located in a flight path area… assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings located in the flight path area… [and] rendering each of the buildings,’ as required by claim 1.” The Examiner disagrees.
Suiter has been applied in at least [0011] and [0061] assigning visual characteristics to each of the buildings in the flight path area. Suiter teaches to indicate each ALS and graphically indicating the ability of the aircraft to reach the ALS is equivalent to assigning one or more visual characteristics to each of the buildings and rendering each building that is considered an ALS and other buildings (ex: hospitals). Further, Rey teaches that buildings are considered landing sites. Therefore, Rey in view of Suiter would teach assigning visual characteristics to each building because Suiter assigns visual characteristics to each alternate landing site.
Additionally, Pippard’s [0046] and [0089] has also been applied to teach rendering each building in the flight path area because it provides the benefit of presenting all relevant information for navigation and operation to the aircraft’s operator. Rey, Suiter, and Pippard must be used in combination to teach rendering each of the buildings.
37. Second, the Applicant has alleged “none of the cited references disclose: ‘in response to the determination that the energy level of the aircraft is low, automatically... (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,’ as recited by claim 1.” The Examiner disagrees.
Rey teaches in at least [0015] and [0048] that the energy level is low but remaining because the aircraft can enable a fully automated response to a situation where the fuel is low due to unforeseen circumstances. Rey’s calculation of available landings sites based on the data received from the aircraft monitoring module is equivalent to the calculation of the aircraft based at least in part of the energy level because the available landing sites are based on fuel reserves.
Further, Suiter teaches in at least [0061], [0091], and [0093] to assign the visual characteristics based on whether the buildings are within the range of the aircraft. Suiter teaches the closest landing sites are marked green and landings sites with extreme distance are marked red. Landing sites marked green or yellow have conditions that are acceptable for landing, whereas landing sites marked red are not possible for landings. Declaring KOMA as a red rating due to extreme distance in [0093] is equivalent to assigning the visual characteristics to a building outside the range of aircraft, which is based on the calculated range of the aircraft based on the energy level.
Therefore, Rey in view of Suiter teaches the calculation of the aircraft range based on the energy level. Although Suiter does not explicitly teach that there is any fuel remaining, Rey does determine the fuel reserves and calculates the available landing sites based on this information. Further, Suiter determines the potential and kinetic energy to determine the range of the aircraft.
Rey in view of Suiter must be taken in combination because 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 above, Suiter was only used to disclose assigning visual characteristics to each of the buildings based on whether the building is located within the range of the aircraft. Rey was used to teach determining the aircraft energy is low but remaining and calculating a range of the aircraft based on the energy level of the aircraft. Thus, Suiter still teaches the features for which it was cited.
38. Third, the Applicant has alleged that “as agreed upon during the discussion, these amendments overcome the current rejection.” This argument is moot because Pippard (US 20190310105 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of rending and displaying each of the buildings at their relative heights in at least paragraphs [0046] and [0089]. Pippard teaches to provide a height profile of the ground in the perspective view display.
39. Fourth, the Applicant has “amended the claims to require that ‘the phase of flight of the aircraft is a cruising phase of flight, a landing phase of flight, or an unplanned emergency landing phase of flight’” and “contends that this additional limitation, along with the already-recited limitation of "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…’ further overcomes the art of record where unplanned emergency landing phases are being cited as the alleged ‘landing phase of flight.’” The Examiner disagrees.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the landing phase of flight may be interpreted as an unplanned emergency landing because there is no indication the landing phase is just for planned landings. Suiter teaches in at least [0069] and [0105] that the aircraft flight information includes the phase of flight, which includes cruising and approach landing.
40. Fifth, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 31 further overcomes the art of record. For example, Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, Vanderkamp, and Munns do not teach or suggest adjusting visual characteristics based on an operator-selected personal preference, including avoidance of colors the operator cannot distinguish.” This argument is moot because Brulle-Drews (US 20060061586 A1) has been applied to teach adjusting the color to a building based on an operator selected preference to avoid colors the operator is unable to distinguish in at least [0037] and [0039]. Brulle-Drews teaches to adjust the color scheme of the display to account of the user’s color deficiencies.
41. Sixth, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 32 further overcomes the art of record. For example, none of the cited references disclose applying luminescent or blinking effects to buildings to distinguish in-range from out-of-range objects.” The Examiner disagrees.
Vanderkamp explicitly teaches in [Column 11, Lines 60-67] that the terrain portion (including buildings) may be modified by causing the terrain to blink/flash. This is equivalent to a first visual characteristic applied to a first building comprises a blinking effect and a second visual characteristic lacking the blinking effect.
42. Seventh, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 33 further overcomes the art of record. For example, Rey and Suiter focus solely on evaluating and displaying landing sites, not buildings as emergency landing candidates.” The Examiner disagrees.
Suiter teaches in at least [0061], [0091], and [0093] that when an emergency landing has been declared, the alternate landing sites are displayed in a green, yellow, and red color scheme. The color-coded landing sites are based on changing factors including distance to runway and available aircraft energy. Suiter explains that the most suitable landing sites are close the current position of the aircraft and are marked as green. This is equivalent to the nearest emergency landing locations being visually distinguished from other buildings (marked as yellow or red).
43. Eighth, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 34 further overcomes the art of record. For example, none of the cited references teaches voice-command selection of any object, let alone buildings.” This argument is moot because Nguyen Kim (US 9702722 B2) has been applied to teach an operator input voice command identifying one of the buildings. Nguyen Kim teaches in at least [Column 1, Lines 34-40] and [Column 9, Lines 28-38] for the user to trigger voice control functionality to generate a view at any location along the user’s path. This is equivalent to voice commands identifying one of the buildings because the user uses a voice command to view any location, including buildings on the path.
44. Ninth, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 35 further overcomes the art of record. For example, Rey, Suiter, Feyereisen, Vanderkamp, and Munns never disclose showing building-level metadata such as charging-station availability or service-personnel availability.” The Examiner disagrees.
Rey explicitly teaches in [0059] that the potential landing sites display parameters associated with the landing site that include amenities such as mechanics and electricity. The mechanics are equivalent to service personnel available at the building and electricity is equivalent to a charging station.
45. Tenth, the Applicant has alleged “new claim 36 further overcomes the art of record. For example, Again, none of the cited references teaches displaying service-personnel availability for a building or landing-pad location.” The Examiner disagrees.
Rey explicitly teaches in [0059] that the potential landing sites display parameters associated with the landing site that include amenities such as mechanics. The mechanics are equivalent to service personnel available at the building.
46. The references cited in the rejections above teach 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.
47. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 21, 24, and 26-30 remain rejected and Claims 31-36 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
48. 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
Prosecution Insights