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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-16, 19-20, and 22 are currently pending.
3. Claims 17 and 21 are canceled.
4. Claims 1, 7, and 14 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20220406201 A1) in view of Whitlow (US 20130323688 A1), and in further view of Kolbe (US 20130100043 A1).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches a pilot incapacitation detection system for an aircraft having a controller comprising a processor and a memory containing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to carry out operations comprising (Johnson: [0050]):
Determining, based on an input received from a flight control computer, a current flight parameter (Johnson: [0024] and [0031]);
Comparing the at least one current flight parameter to a corresponding predetermined flight metric associated with at least one of a predetermined flight plan or a benchmark for a predetermined flight stage (Johnson: [0045]);
Determining a trend in the at least on current flight parameter; determining, based on the trend in the at least one current flight parameter, a likelihood the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state (Johnson: [0045] Note that the duration of time a flight parameter (e.g., cross track error or traversing past the TOD point) exceeding a threshold is equivalent to a trend because two points in time are used to determine a nominal event [abnormal state] is likely. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a trend is a general direction change between at least two points over a period of time. For example, the TOD point and any point the aircraft is above the TOD for a period of time would indicate a trend that aircraft is not following the flight path. If the aircraft is above the TOD for a threshold period of time, it is explained that it is likely the aircraft triggers a nominal event and is in an abnormal state.)…
Causing a first prompt by a user interface in communication with the controller, the first prompt being associated with a first-time threshold (Johnson: [0046], [0047], and [0060]);
Determining that the first-time threshold has been satisfied; responsive to determining that the first-time threshold has been satisfied, initiating an emergency protocol and causing a second prompt by the user interface, the second prompt being associated with a second time threshold (Johnson: [0048]);
Determining that the second time threshold has been satisfied; and responsive to determining that the second time threshold has been satisfied, proceed to carry out the emergency protocol (Johnson: [0049]).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one current flight parameter is a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whitlow teaches determining a trend in the at least on current flight parameter; determining, based on the trend in the at least one current flight parameter, that the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state (Whitlow: [0032], [0037], and [0053]);
And wherein the at least one current flight parameter is a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given (Whitlow: [0030] and [0033] Note that identifying an increase in latency for pilot inputs is equivalent to a trend of the current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time.).
Johnson and Whitlow are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Whitlow to determine a trend in a current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time and determine the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state based on the trend of the current flight parameter because it provides the benefit of monitoring flight parameters and the pilots to improve safety in the case of a pilot incapacitation, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Whitlow. Identifying a trend in pilot flight parameters used to determine an anomaly to control the aircraft based on the detected abnormal state. This higher urgency control increases the awareness of the pilots and increases the safety of the passengers and aircraft surroundings.
Johnson and Whitlow fail to explicitly teach determining, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kolbe teaches determining, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range (Kolbe: [0021] and [0023] Note that the comparison indicating any dwell time above a certain amount is equivalent to determining whether an indicator is present based on a determination the duration of use of a control is within a predetermined range (an upper limit). Kolbe teaches in [0021] that dwell time is used to determine an inadvertent control [abnormal state] based on a comparison of the dwell time being greater than a threshold. Further, Kolby teaches in [0023] that the reference characteristic (e.g., dwell time) may be numerically modified or substituted for less than. This is also equivalent to determining if the duration of use instance is within a predetermined range (a lower limit).).
Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson and Whitlow to incorporate the teachings of Kolbe to determine an indicator associated with a pilot comprising a duration of each use instance of control of the aircraft is within a predetermined range because it provides the benefit of determining inadvertent input controls by the pilots as explicitly explained in [0002] and [0021] of Kolbe.
10. Regarding Claim 2, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Johnson teaches determining that the aircraft is in an abnormal state comprises determining that the at least one current flight parameter is outside a threshold deviation from the corresponding predetermined flight metric (Johnson: [0045]).
11. Regarding Claim 3, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Johnson teaches at least one of the first-time thresholds or the second time threshold is based on a level of severity associated with the abnormal state (Johnson: [0020] and [0048]).
12. Regarding Claim 5, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Johnson teaches at least one of the first-time thresholds or the second time threshold is set by the controller based on a current flight stage of the aircraft (Johnson: [0042]).
13. Regarding Claim 6, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Johnson teaches at least one of the first-time thresholds or the second time threshold is decreased when the aircraft is in at least one of a takeoff flight stage or a landing flight stage as compared to when the aircraft is in a cruising flight stage (Johnson: [0042]).
14. Regarding Claim 7, Johnson teaches a pilot incapacitation detection system for an aircraft, the system comprising: a controller configured to: receive an input from a flight control computer: determine a trend in the input; evaluate based on the trend in the input, whether at least one of an inactivity milestone or a flight milestone has been achieved; and, responsive to the evaluation, determine a likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state (Johnson: [0024] and [0045] Note that the duration of time a flight parameter (e.g., cross track error or traversing past the TOD point) exceeding a threshold is equivalent to a trend because two points in time are used to determine a nominal event [abnormal state] is likely. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a trend is a general direction change between at least two points over a period of time. For example, the TOD point and any point the aircraft is above the TOD for a period of time would indicate a trend that aircraft is not following the flight path. If the aircraft is above the TOD for a threshold period of time, it is explained that it is likely the aircraft triggers a nominal event and is in an abnormal state.)…
A display comprising a user interface, the controller being configured to cause the user interface to generate a first prompt by a user interface in communication with the controller, the first prompt being associated with a first-time threshold, the controller being further configured to (Johnson: [0046], [0047], and [0060]):
Determine whether the first-time threshold has been satisfied; responsive to determining that the first-time threshold has been satisfied, initiate an emergency protocol and cause a second prompt by the user interface, the second prompt being associated with a second time threshold (Johnson: [0048]);
Determine whether the second time threshold has been satisfied; and responsive to determining that the second time threshold has been satisfied, carry out the emergency protocol (Johnson: [0049]).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach wherein the input comprises a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whitlow teaches a controller configured to: receive an input from a flight control computer: determine a trend in the input; evaluate based on the trend in the input, whether at least one of an inactivity milestone or a flight milestone has been achieved; and, responsive to the evaluation, determine whether the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state (Whitlow: [0032], [0037], and [0053]);
And wherein the input comprises a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given (Whitlow: [0030] and [0033] Note that identifying an increase in latency for pilot inputs is equivalent to a trend of the current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time.).
Johnson and Whitlow are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Whitlow to determine a trend in a current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time and determine the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state based on the trend of the current flight parameter because it provides the benefit of monitoring flight parameters and the pilots to improve safety in the case of a pilot incapacitation, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Whitlow. Identifying a trend in pilot flight parameters used to determine an anomaly to control the aircraft based on the detected abnormal state. This higher urgency control increases the awareness of the pilots and increases the safety of the passengers and aircraft surroundings.
Johnson and Whitlow fail to explicitly teach to determine, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kolbe teaches to determine, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range (Kolbe: [0021] and [0023] Note that the comparison indicating any dwell time above a certain amount is equivalent to determining whether an indicator is present based on a determination the duration of use of a control is within a predetermined range (an upper limit). Kolbe teaches in [0021] that dwell time is used to determine an inadvertent control [abnormal state] based on a comparison of the dwell time being greater than a threshold. Further, Kolby teaches in [0023] that the reference characteristic (e.g., dwell time) may be numerically modified or substituted for less than. This is also equivalent to determining if the duration of use instance is within a predetermined range (a lower limit).).
Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson and Whitlow to incorporate the teachings of Kolbe to determine an indicator associated with a pilot comprising a duration of each use instance of control of the aircraft is within a predetermined range because it provides the benefit of determining inadvertent input controls by the pilots as explicitly explained in [0002] and [0021] of Kolbe.
15. Regarding Claim 8, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Johnson teaches determining that the inactivity milestone has been missed comprises: determining an interval of time between at least two consecutive interactions with at least one of the user interface or a pilot control system in communication with the controller; and comparing the interval to a set inactivity time (Johnson: [0045] and [0053]).
16. Regarding Claim 9, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Johnson teaches the inactivity time is set based on a severity of the abnormal state (Johnson: [0020] and [0048]).
17. Regarding Claim 10, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Johnson teaches the inactivity time is set based on a flight stage of the aircraft (Johnson: [0042]).
18. Regarding Claim 11, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Johnson teaches determining that the flight milestone has been missed comprises determining the at least one current flight parameter during a current flight stage (Johnson: [0031] and [0045]).
19. Regarding Claim 12, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Johnson teaches the operations further comprise comparing the at least one current flight parameter to a stored benchmark metric associated with a predetermined flight stage (Johnson: [0045]).
20. Regarding Claim 13, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Johnson teaches the operations further comprise comparing the at least one current flight parameter to a predetermined flight metric associated with a flight plan (Johnson: [0045]).
21. Regarding Claim 14, Johnson teaches a method of determining incapacitation of a pilot of an aircraft, the method comprising: determining, by a controller in communication with a flight control computer, a parameter associated with a current flight (Johnson: [0024] and [0031]);
Determining, by the controller, a likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state based on a trend in the parameter associated with the current flight and a comparison between the parameter associated with the current flight and a predetermined flight metric (Johnson: [0045] Note that the duration of time a flight parameter (e.g., cross track error or traversing past the TOD point) exceeding a threshold is equivalent to a trend because two points in time are used to determine a nominal event [abnormal state] is likely. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a trend is a general direction change between at least two points over a period of time. For example, the TOD point and any point the aircraft is above the TOD for a period of time would indicate a trend that aircraft is not following the flight path. If the aircraft is above the TOD for a threshold period of time, it is explained that it is likely the aircraft triggers a nominal event and is in an abnormal state.)…
Determining that at least one of an inactivity milestone or a flight milestone has been missed (Johnson: [0045]);
Causing, by the controller, a first prompt on a user interface in communication with the controller (Johnson: [0046], [0047], and [0060]);
Determining that the first prompt has not been acknowledged; responsive to determining that the first prompt has not been acknowledged, determine that a pilot is incapacitated and cause a second prompt on the user interface (Johnson: [0048]);
Determine that the second prompt has not been acknowledged; and based on determining that the second prompt has not been acknowledged, carry out an emergency protocol (Johnson: [0049]).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach wherein the parameter is a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Whitlow teaches determining, by the controller, that the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state based on a trend in the parameter associated with the current flight and a comparison between the parameter associated with the current flight and a predetermined flight metric (Whitlow: [0032], [0037], and [0053]);
And wherein the parameter is a degree of compliance with an instruction for carrying out a command, the degree of compliance being based on a latency time after the command is given (Whitlow: [0030] and [0033] Note that identifying an increase in latency for pilot inputs is equivalent to a trend of the current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time.)
Johnson and Whitlow are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson to incorporate the teachings of Whitlow to determine a trend in a current flight parameter that is a degree of compliance based on latency time and determine the aircraft is likely to transition from a normal state to an abnormal state based on the trend of the current flight parameter because it provides the benefit of monitoring flight parameters and the pilots to improve safety in the case of a pilot incapacitation, as explicitly explained in [0028] of Whitlow. Identifying a trend in pilot flight parameters used to determine an anomaly to control the aircraft based on the detected abnormal state. This higher urgency control increases the awareness of the pilots and increases the safety of the passengers and aircraft surroundings.
Johnson and Whitlow fail to explicitly teach determining, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kolbe teaches determining, in conjunction with determining the likelihood of the aircraft transitioning from a normal state to an abnormal state, whether an indicator is present, the indicator being provided for a pilot of the aircraft and associated with a determination that a duration of each use instance of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range (Kolbe: [0021] and [0023] Note that the comparison indicating any dwell time above a certain amount is equivalent to determining whether an indicator is present based on a determination the duration of use of a control is within a predetermined range (an upper limit). Kolbe teaches in [0021] that dwell time is used to determine an inadvertent control [abnormal state] based on a comparison of the dwell time being greater than a threshold. Further, Kolby teaches in [0023] that the reference characteristic (e.g., dwell time) may be numerically modified or substituted for less than. This is also equivalent to determining if the duration of use instance is within a predetermined range (a lower limit).).
Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson and Whitlow to incorporate the teachings of Kolbe to determine an indicator associated with a pilot comprising a duration of each use instance of control of the aircraft is within a predetermined range because it provides the benefit of determining inadvertent input controls by the pilots as explicitly explained in [0002] and [0021] of Kolbe.
22. Regarding Claim 15, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Johnson teaches the first prompt comprises an indication of one or more flight-related parameters (Johnson: [0047] Note that under broadest reasonable interpretation, a flight related parameter may be interpreted as time without a pilot interaction.).
23. Regarding Claim 16, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Johnson teaches the second prompt comprises an indication that the emergency protocol will be initiated (Johnson: [0048]).
24. Regarding Claim 18, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Johnson teaches the aircraft is single-pilot operated (Johnson: [0019] and [0022]).
25. Regarding Claim 19, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Johnson teaches determining that the first prompt has not been acknowledged comprises determining whether an input has been received by the user interface within a first time threshold (Johnson: [0049]).
26. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20220406201 A1), in view of Whitlow (US 20130323688 A1), in view of Kolbe (US 20130100043 A1), and in further view of Kim (US 20170345318 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 4, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 3.
Johnson does not explicitly teach wherein the level of severity is based on an amount of deviation of the at least one current flight parameter relative to the corresponding predetermined flight metric. However, Johnson teaches [0052] and [0058].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the level of severity based on the amount of deviation of the current flight parameter as similarly shown in Johnson's [0052] and [0058] use of the scaling factor for nominal and emergency events. Johnson explains that a stall condition (which would have a large deviation(s) from predetermined flight plan) has a higher severity than a cross-track error because it is a more urgent emergency. Johnson's use of the scaling factor for different deviations of flight parameters provides the benefit of decreasing the time threshold to make a quicker determination of an incapacitated pilot. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers, vehicle, and surroundings.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the level of severity is based on an amount of deviation of the current flight parameter relative to the corresponding predetermined flight metric (Kim: [0019] and [0039]).
Johnson, Whitlow, Kolbe, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe to incorporate the teachings of Kim for the level of severity to be based on an amount of deviation of the current flight parameter relative to the corresponding predetermined flight metric because it provides the benefit of accurately and efficiently controlling the aircraft in potential emergency situations in order to alleviate the abnormal operating conditions, as explicitly explained in [0018] of Kim. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety for the passengers, vehicle, and surroundings.
28. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20220406201 A1), in view of Whitlow (US 20130323688 A1), in view of Kolbe (US 20130100043 A1), and in further view of Jourdan (US 20050073440 A1).
29. Regarding Claim 20, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 14, and further, Johnson teaches determining that the second prompt has not been acknowledged comprises determining whether an input has been received by the user interface within a second time threshold… (Johnson: [0049]).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach where the second time threshold is smaller than the first-time threshold. Johnson discloses the claimed invention except for where the second time threshold being smaller than the first-time threshold. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the second time threshold smaller than the first-time threshold, since the applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the second time threshold being set to the same time (or greater) as the first-time threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jourdan teaches determining that the second prompt has not been acknowledged comprises determining whether an input has been received by the user interface within a second time threshold, the second time threshold being smaller than the first time threshold (Jourdan: [0008]-[0010], [0070], and [0071]).
Johnson, Whitlow, Kolbe, and Jourdan are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe to incorporate the teachings of Jourdan for the second time threshold to be smaller than the first-time threshold because it provides the benefit of providing an early determination/caution that the pilot needs to control the aircraft, as explicitly explained in [0067] of Jourdan. This provides the additional benefit initiating an autopilot control of the aircraft to improve the safety of the situation, which increases the safety of the passengers, vehicle, and surroundings.
30. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20220406201 A1), in view of Whitlow (US 20130323688 A1), in view of Kolbe (US 20130100043 A1), and in further view of Kawalkar (US 20140240242 A1).
31. Regarding Claim 22, Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe do not explicitly teach the at least one control comprises at least one of a throttle control or a pitch control.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kawalkar teaches the at least one control comprises at least one of a throttle control or a pitch control (Kawalkar: [0030] and [0041]).
Johnson, Whitlow, Kolbe, and Kawalkar are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of 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 Johnson, Whitlow, and Kolbe to incorporate the teachings of Kawalkar for the control to comprise a throttle or pitch control because it provides the benefit of determining the inadvertent touching of a display that has multiple functions. Kawalkar explains in [0003] that control functions including the throttle are significant controls of the touch screen interface and would therefore be important to evaluate the user's interaction intention.
Response to Arguments
32. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-16, 19-20, and 22 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. Kolbe (US 20130100043 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of a determination that each of the use instances of at least one control within the aircraft is within a predetermined range in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0021] and [0023]. Kolbe teaches to determine when the user inadvertently touches the display that is used to control the aircraft based on a comparison of time above a certain amount. Kolbe also teaches the comparison may be substituted for a reference characteristic that is less than. As a result, the determination of the reference characteristic greater than and less than establish a predetermined range of a duration of each use instance.
33. The cited prior art references 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.
34. Claims 1-16, 19-20, and 22 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
35. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fell (US 20170240292 A1)
Huynh (US 20200172230 A1)
36. 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