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, 3-5, 8-11, and 15-17 are currently pending.
2. Claims 2, 6-7, 12-14, and 18-20 are canceled.
3. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 3-5, 9-11, and 16-17, has been included based on its dependency.
5. Claim 1 recites the limitation "a singular, linear path" in Lines 10 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the singular, linear paths are identical. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the singular linear paths are interpreted as the same path. Claims 8 and 15 have the same limitations as Claim 1 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
6. Claim 8 recites the limitation "an alignment artifice" in Lines 20 and 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, it is unclear if the alignment artifices are the same. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the alignment artifices are interpreted as the same. Claim 15 has the same limitations as Claim 8 except for they are separate independent claims but are rejected for the same reasoning.
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.
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, 3-5, 8-11, and 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (US 20100211237 A1), in view of Bilek (US 20200231298 A1), in view of Wilson (US 20120010765 A1), and in further view of Burgin (US 20140309817 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Nichols teaches a method comprising: receiving radar data; receiving a primary flight path… (Nichols: [0029] and [0031]);
Mapping the radar data to the primary flight path… (Nichols: [0044]);
Transforming the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path… are rendered along a single, linear path… (Nichols: [0019], [0045], [0053], and [0059] Note that the flight path including curves is equivalent to the display in Nichols indicating to the pilot when to turn. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flight path including curves is equivalent to Nichols' flight path and waypoints (even if the aircraft has already flown the curves in the flight path) because the path that the aircraft is flying must make a turn onto the last phase of flight to approach and land at the destination airport (see Fig. 2).);
Dividing the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments… (Nichols: [0043] and [0048]);
Rendering the at least two primary flight plan segments… onto a secondary display (Nichols: [0043] and [0050] Note that rendering at least two segments onto the secondary display is equivalent to displaying the segments of the approach course 220 on the secondary display in 202 and 206.),
Arranged and oriented to maximize a representation of radar data based on dimensions of the secondary display (Nichols: [0052] and [0053] Note that maximizing the amount of radar data being displayed is equivalent to providing a continuously updated virtual representation as the rendered features on the display shift.);
Applying an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments and each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related (Nichols: [0050] Note that applying an alignment artifice to each of the two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related is equivalent to the approach course indicator 220 so the viewer can distinguish it is linked to the counterpart in the primary flight display.);
And periodically re-dividing the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments, and re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize an amount of radar data being rendered (Nichols: [0052] and [0053] Note that re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize the amount of radar data being displayed is equivalent to providing a continuously updated virtual representation as the rendered features on the display shift.),
Wherein the at least two segments are disposed non-linearly and enlarged (Nichols: [0050] and [0058] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the two segments disposed non-linearly and enlarged is equivalent the approach course 220 in sections 202 and 206 not being arranged in a continuous straight line. Also, note that the at least two segments being enlarged is equivalent to section 202 being larger than section 206. The approach course segment in section 202 takes up more space on the display and is therefore enlarged compared to section 206.).
Nichols fails to explicitly teach receiving an alternate flight path; mapping the radar data to... the alternate flight path; transforming... the alternate flight path... into linear segments such that... the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; dividing the alternate flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and rendering the... at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display... and applying an alignment artifice to... each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
However, as previously cited, Nichols teaches receiving a primary flight path; mapping the radar data to the primary flight path; transforming the primary flight path into linear segments such that the primary flight path... [is] rendered along a single, linear path; dividing the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and rendering the at least two primary flight plan segments onto a secondary display, and applying an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
Further, Nichols teaches receiving a specific flight path from a navigational database that includes geographical waypoints and different airport data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the processor to perform the same steps for an additional/alternate flight path as similarly shown in Nichols' [0025] and [0031] use of the navigation database to obtain geographical waypoints and airport data. The navigational database provides the benefit of storing flight data to be used for multiple flight paths so that the aircraft is not limited to flying one path.
Nichols fails to explicitly teach the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bilek teaches transforming the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Bilek: [0041] and [0043]).
Nichols and Bilek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols to incorporate the teachings of Bilek to transform the primary flight path such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single linear path because it provides the benefit of improving pilot awareness by assisting the flight crew with review of radar data along the flight path. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the aircraft and passengers.
Nichols and Bilek fail to explicitly teach determining that the primary flight path includes curves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wilson teaches determining that the primary flight path includes curves (Wilson: [0005], [0043], and [0044] Note that under broadest reasonable interpretation a primary flight path that includes curves is interpreted as a flight path (vertical or horizontal) that is not linear. The primary flight path including curves is equivalent to each route segment ahead of the aircraft in Wilson being a separate linear segment. The different segments of flight that are expanded are not constant because the rate of descent changes, but also the flight path changes from descending to ascending (see Fig. 9).);
And transforming the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Wilson: [0037] and [0040]).
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols and Bilek to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to determine a primary flight path includes curves and transform the primary flight path into linear segments because it provides the benefit of providing additional information related to the flight path segments. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the pilots because the detailed information is displayed for a selected route segment of the flight path.
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson fail to explicitly teach the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burgin teaches receiving an alternate flight path; mapping the radar data to the primary flight path and the alternate flight path; transforming the primary flight path, the alternate flight path, and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that… the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; and rendering the at least two primary flight plan segments and at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display (Burgin: [0026]),
And the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path (Burgin: [0024], [0031], and [0033] Note that the flight paths are divided into segments, where each start/end of the segment is indicated by a star icon. Fig. 2 displays the primary flight path segments (203) are visually distinct from the alternate flight path segments (202 and 204).).
Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Burgin for the primary flight path segments and the alternate flight path segments to be rendered with distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices because it provide the benefit with the greatest amount of information to distinguish between the optimal route and alternative routes. Differentiating the flight path segments of the flight paths provides the additional benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots while navigating the aircraft.
12. Regarding Claim 3, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Nichols teaches rendering an aircraft location and aircraft destination in each of the at least two segments (Nichols: [0041], [0044], and [0048]).
13. Regarding Claim 4, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft location comprises a virtual aircraft location (Nichols: [0041] and [0044]).
14. Regarding Claim 5, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft destination comprises a virtual aircraft destination (Nichols: [0048]).
15. Regarding Claim 8, Nichols teaches a system comprising: a display; and at least one processor in data communication with the display and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to (Nichols: [0005] and [0017]):
Receive radar data; receive a primary flight path… (Nichols: [0029] and [0031]);
Map the radar data to the primary flight path… (Nichols: [0044]);
Transform the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path… are rendered along a single, linear path… (Nichols: [0019], [0045], [0053], and [0059] Note that the flight path including curves is equivalent to the display in Nichols indicating to the pilot when to turn. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flight path including curves is equivalent to Nichols' flight path and waypoints (even if the aircraft has already flown the curves in the flight path) because the path that the aircraft is flying must make a turn onto the last phase of flight to approach and land at the destination airport (see Fig. 2).);
Divide the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments… (Nichols: [0043] and [0048]);
Apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two segments indicating how corresponding segments are related (Nichols: [0050]);
Render the at least two primary flight plan segments… onto a secondary display (Nichols: [0043] and [0050] Note that rendering at least two segments onto the secondary display is equivalent to displaying the segments of the approach course 220 on the secondary display in 202 and 206.),
Arranged and oriented to maximize a representation of radar data based on dimensions of the secondary display (Nichols: [0052] and [0053] Note that maximizing the amount of radar data being displayed is equivalent to providing a continuously updated virtual representation as the rendered features on the display shift.);
Apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments and each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related (Nichols: [0050] Note that applying an alignment artifice to each of the two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related is equivalent to the approach course indicator 220 so the viewer can distinguish it is linked to the counterpart in the primary flight display.);
And periodically re-dividing the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments, and re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize an amount of radar data being rendered (Nichols: [0052] and [0053] Note that re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize the amount of radar data being displayed is equivalent to providing a continuously updated virtual representation as the rendered features on the display shift.),
Wherein the at least two segments are disposed non-linearly and enlarged (Nichols: [0050] and [0058] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the two segments disposed non-linearly and enlarged is equivalent the approach course 220 in sections 202 and 206 not being arranged in a continuous straight line. Also, note that the at least two segments being enlarged is equivalent to section 202 being larger than section 206. The approach course segment in section 202 takes up more space on the display and is therefore enlarged compared to section 206.).
Nichols fails to explicitly teach to receive an alternate flight path; map the radar data to... the alternate flight path; transform... the alternate flight path... into linear segments such that... the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; divide the alternate flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and render the... at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display... and apply an alignment artifice to... each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
However, as previously cited, Nichols teaches to receive a primary flight path; map the radar data to the primary flight path; transform the primary flight path into linear segments such that the primary flight path... [is] rendered along a single, linear path; divide the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and render the at least two primary flight plan segments onto a secondary display, and apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
Further, Nichols teaches receiving a specific flight path from a navigational database that includes geographical waypoints and different airport data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the processor to perform the same steps for an additional/alternate flight path as similarly shown in Nichols' [0025] and [0031] use of the navigation database to obtain geographical waypoints and airport data. The navigational database provides the benefit of storing flight data to be used for multiple flight paths so that the aircraft is not limited to flying one path.
Nichols fails to explicitly teach the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bilek teaches transforming the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Bilek: [0041] and [0043]).
Nichols and Bilek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols to incorporate the teachings of Bilek to transform the primary flight path such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single linear path because it provides the benefit of improving pilot awareness by assisting the flight crew with review of radar data along the flight path. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the aircraft and passengers.
Nichols and Bilek fail to explicitly teach to determine that the primary flight path includes curves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wilson teaches to determine that the primary flight path includes curves (Wilson: [0005], [0043], and [0044] Note that under broadest reasonable interpretation a primary flight path that includes curves is interpreted as a flight path (vertical or horizontal) that is not linear. The primary flight path including curves is equivalent to each route segment ahead of the aircraft in Wilson being a separate linear segment. The different segments of flight that are expanded are not constant because the rate of descent changes, but also the flight path changes from descending to ascending (see Fig. 9).);
And transform the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Wilson: [0037] and [0040]).
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols and Bilek to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to determine a primary flight path includes curves and transform the primary flight path into linear segments because it provides the benefit of providing additional information related to the flight path segments. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the pilots because the detailed information is displayed for a selected route segment of the flight path.
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson fail to explicitly teach the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burgin teaches to receive an alternate flight path; map the radar data to the primary flight path and the alternate flight path; transform the primary flight path, the alternate flight path, and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that… the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; and render the at least two primary flight plan segments and at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display (Burgin: [0026]),
And the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path (Burgin: [0024], [0031], and [0033] Note that the flight paths are divided into segments, where each start/end of the segment is indicated by a star icon. Fig. 2 displays the primary flight path segments (203) are visually distinct from the alternate flight path segments (202 and 204).).
Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Burgin for the primary flight path segments and the alternate flight path segments to be rendered with distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices because it provide the benefit with the greatest amount of information to distinguish between the optimal route and alternative routes. Differentiating the flight path segments of the flight paths provides the additional benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots while navigating the aircraft.
16. Regarding Claim 9, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Nichols teaches to render an aircraft location and aircraft destination in each of the at least two segments (Nichols: [0041], [0044], and [0048]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft location comprises a virtual aircraft location (Nichols: [0041] and [0044]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 9, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft destination comprises a virtual aircraft destination (Nichols: [0048]).
19. Regarding Claim 15, Nichols teaches a computer apparatus comprising: at least one processor in data communication with a display and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to (Nichols: [0005] and [0017]):
Receive radar data; receive a primary flight path… (Nichols: [0029] and [0031]);
Map the radar data to the primary flight path… (Nichols: [0044]);
Transform the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path… are rendered along a single, linear path… (Nichols: [0019], [0045], [0053], and [0059] Note that the flight path including curves is equivalent to the display in Nichols indicating to the pilot when to turn. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the flight path including curves is equivalent to Nichols' flight path and waypoints (even if the aircraft has already flown the curves in the flight path) because the path that the aircraft is flying must make a turn onto the last phase of flight to approach and land at the destination airport (see Fig. 2).);
Divide the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments… (Nichols: [0043] and [0048]);
Apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two segments indicating how corresponding segments are related (Nichols: [0050]);
Render the at least two primary flight plan segments… onto a secondary display (Nichols: [0043] and [0050] Note that rendering at least two segments onto the secondary display is equivalent to displaying the segments of the approach course 220 on the secondary display in 202 and 206.),
Apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments and each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related (Nichols: [0050] Note that applying an alignment artifice to each of the two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related is equivalent to the approach course indicator 220 so the viewer can distinguish it is linked to the counterpart in the primary flight display.);
And render an aircraft location and aircraft destination in each of the at least two segments (Nichols: [0048] and [0059]);
And periodically re-dividing the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments, and re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize an amount of radar data being rendered (Nichols: [0052] and [0053] Note that re-rendering the at least two segments to maximize the amount of radar data being displayed is equivalent to providing a continuously updated virtual representation as the rendered features on the display shift.),
Wherein the at least two segments are disposed non-linearly and enlarged (Nichols: [0050] and [0058] Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the two segments disposed non-linearly and enlarged is equivalent the approach course 220 in sections 202 and 206 not being arranged in a continuous straight line. Also, note that the at least two segments being enlarged is equivalent to section 202 being larger than section 206. The approach course segment in section 202 takes up more space on the display and is therefore enlarged compared to section 206.).
Nichols fails to explicitly teach to receive an alternate flight path; map the radar data to... the alternate flight path; transform... the alternate flight path... into linear segments such that... the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; divide the alternate flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and render the... at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display... and apply an alignment artifice to... each of the at least two alternate flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
However, as previously cited, Nichols teaches to receive a primary flight path; map the radar data to the primary flight path; transform the primary flight path into linear segments such that the primary flight path... [is] rendered along a single, linear path; divide the primary flight path and corresponding radar data into at least two segments; and render the at least two primary flight plan segments onto a secondary display, and apply an alignment artifice to each of the at least two primary flight path segments indicating how corresponding segments are related.
Further, Nichols teaches receiving a specific flight path from a navigational database that includes geographical waypoints and different airport data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the processor to perform the same steps for an additional/alternate flight path as similarly shown in Nichols' [0025] and [0031] use of the navigation database to obtain geographical waypoints and airport data. The navigational database provides the benefit of storing flight data to be used for multiple flight paths so that the aircraft is not limited to flying one path.
Nichols fails to explicitly teach the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bilek teaches transforming the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Bilek: [0041] and [0043]).
Nichols and Bilek are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols to incorporate the teachings of Bilek to transform the primary flight path such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single linear path because it provides the benefit of improving pilot awareness by assisting the flight crew with review of radar data along the flight path. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the aircraft and passengers.
Nichols and Bilek fail to explicitly teach to determine that the primary flight path includes curves.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wilson teaches to determine that the primary flight path includes curves (Wilson: [0005], [0043], and [0044] Note that under broadest reasonable interpretation a primary flight path that includes curves is interpreted as a flight path (vertical or horizontal) that is not linear. The primary flight path including curves is equivalent to each route segment ahead of the aircraft in Wilson being a separate linear segment. The different segments of flight that are expanded are not constant because the rate of descent changes, but also the flight path changes from descending to ascending (see Fig. 9).);
And transform the primary flight path… and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that the primary flight path and radar data are rendered along a single, linear path (Wilson: [0037] and [0040]).
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols and Bilek to incorporate the teachings of Wilson to determine a primary flight path includes curves and transform the primary flight path into linear segments because it provides the benefit of providing additional information related to the flight path segments. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the pilots because the detailed information is displayed for a selected route segment of the flight path.
Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson fail to explicitly teach the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Burgin teaches to receive an alternate flight path; map the radar data to the primary flight path and the alternate flight path; transform the primary flight path, the alternate flight path, and corresponding radar data into linear segments such that… the alternate flight path and corresponding weather radar data are rendered along a single, linear path; and render the at least two primary flight plan segments and at least two alternate flight plan segments onto a secondary display (Burgin: [0026]),
And the primary flight path segments and the at least two alternate flight path segments are rendered with in distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices to distinguish the primary flight path and the alternate flight path (Burgin: [0024], [0031], and [0033] Note that the flight paths are divided into segments, where each start/end of the segment is indicated by a star icon. Fig. 2 displays the primary flight path segments (203) are visually distinct from the alternate flight path segments (202 and 204).).
Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft flight displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nichols, Bilek, and Wilson to incorporate the teachings of Burgin for the primary flight path segments and the alternate flight path segments to be rendered with distinct color schemes and with distinct patterns in the alignment artifices because it provide the benefit with the greatest amount of information to distinguish between the optimal route and alternative routes. Differentiating the flight path segments of the flight paths provides the additional benefit of increasing the awareness of the pilots while navigating the aircraft.
20. Regarding Claim 16, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft location comprises a virtual aircraft location (Nichols: [0041] and [0044]).
21. Regarding Claim 17, Nichols, Bilek, Wilson, and Burgin remains as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Nichols teaches wherein at least one aircraft destination comprises a virtual aircraft destination (Nichols: [0048]).
Response to Arguments
22. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Burgin (US 20140309817 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of the primary and alternate flight paths being rendered in distinct colors and patterns to distinguish the paths in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0024], [0031], and [0033]. Burgin teaches to display the primary flight plan in a visually distinct manner using color or pattern to differentiate from the alternate flight plans. The color and pattern schemes indicate to the pilot the primary/optimal flight plan.
23. Nichols (US 20100211237 A1), in view of Bilek (US 20200231298 A1), in view of Wilson (US 20120010765 A1), and in further view of Burgin (US 20140309817 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.
24. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, and 15-17 remain 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
25. 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.
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
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights