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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 Aug 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 04 Aug 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Worsham, Luobikis, Murthy, Ogden, List, Bell, Nichols, Baladi, James, and V.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worsham, II et al. US 20190161203 A1 (herein, Worsham) and in view of Luobikis et al. US 20210122499 A1 (herein, Luobikis), Murthy – “Keys for airplanes?” (herein, Murthy), Ogden US 10242582 B1 (herein, Ogden), Nichols et al., US 20100211237 A1 (herein, Nichols), and in further view of Baladi et al, US 20220097864 A1 (herein, Baladi).
Regarding Claim 1, Worsham discloses, an aircraft (FIG. 1, #101) comprising:
a plurality of engines (FIG. 1, #115);
a display (FIGS. 4 and 8A-C, #245) in a primary field of view of a pilot of the aircraft (FIG. 4, ¶[0051] – “FIG. 4 is a detailed view of the instrument panel 241, which includes a switch panel 243 and display 245,… pilot interacts with the instrument panel 241 to control the various flight control systems…”), the display being polychromatic (¶[0065] – “…being shown in the first color (e.g., green), and vertical line hashing for an indicator illustrates the indicator being shown in the second color (e.g., magenta)…” – i.e. polychromatic).
Worsham discloses an engine control panel (FIG. 4, #241) disposed on different surface than the display (FIG. 4 illustrates 241 on different surface than 245) and control knobs (FIGS. 4 and 9A illustrates knobs of 243) but does not disclose, an engine control panel disposed on different surface than the display but does not disclose, such that the engine control panel is in a secondary field of view of the pilot of the aircraft, the engine control panel comprising engine control knobs and alert indicators, the alert indicators disposed above the engine control knobs, the alert indicators being monochromatic, the alert indicators being different from the display.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the alert indicators are located above the engine control knobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the alert indicators above the engine control knobs so as to have the alert and control knobs in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0002-0004], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the location of the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
However, Nichols teaches, such that the engine control panel is in a secondary field of view of the pilot of the aircraft (¶[0042] – “… to generate a secondary display that keeps the designated target in its field of view at all times. In certain embodiments, the secondary display includes a synthetic perspective view of the designated target as viewed from a selected viewpoint (such as the host aircraft). The secondary synthetic perspective display enables the pilot or crew to view the designated object or location of interest at all times regardless of whether that object or location is also being displayed on the primary flight display.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include a secondary field of view as taught by Nichols. Doing so improves the pilot’s situational awareness by providing an additional field of view while navigation the aircraft.
Additionally, Luobikis teaches, an engine control panel disposed on different surface than the display, the engine control panel comprising engine control knobs and alert indicators, the alert indicators disposed above the engine control knobs, the alert indicators being monochromatic (¶[0044] – “…may result in a yellow LED light being turned on and/or flashing…” and “…an on-screen alert,…” – i.e. LED is monochromatic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the alert indicators being monochromatic as taught by Luobikis. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert being a single color associated with a respective control knob.
Also, Murthy teaches, the alert indicators being different from the display (Page 8, per below illustration).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the alert indicators being different from the display as taught by Murthy. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert being a single color associated with a respective control knob.
Modified Worsham further discloses a controller (FIG. 2, #205), a first engine (FIG. 1, #115 has a first engine), but does not disclose,
a controller configured to:
detect a problem with a first engine of the engines;
generate an alert based on the problem detected with the first engine; and
provide an alert for the problem with the display and with a first alert indicator of the alert indicators, the first alert indicator being associated with the first engine.
However, Ogden teaches,
a controller configured to:
detect a problem (Col. 8, lines 4-19: “…detection of an engine failure…”) with a first engine of the engines; and
provide the alert (CAS – crew alert system) for the problem with the display and with a first alert indicator (EICAS – engine indicating and crew alert system) of the alert indicators, the first alert indicator being associated with the first engine (Col. 4, lines 21-55: “…flight displays 102 may be configured to generate a display during an engine failure scenario,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as disclosed by modified Worsham to include providing the first alert indicator associated with the first engine as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective engine.
Modified Worsham discloses the first engine but does not disclose, generate an alert based on the problem detected with the first engine.
However, Baladi teaches, generate an alert based on the problem detected with the first engine (¶[0153] – “…the controller 110 of the present system and method may issue a warning or alert. The warning or alert may indicate a need for urgent engine maintenance,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as disclosed by modified Worsham to include an alert based on engine problem as taught by Baladi. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on an alert and its association with the respective engine.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Worsham discloses the controller but does not disclose, wherein the controller is configured to provide the alert by:
rendering the alert with the display using different colors based on a severity of the alert; and
illuminating the first alert indicator in a same color regardless of the severity of the alert.
However, Luobikis teaches,
rendering the alert with the display using different colors based on a severity of the alert (FIG. 5, #s 512 and 516 are different colors based on the severity of the expected service threshold); and
illuminating the first alert indicator in a same color regardless of the severity of the alert (¶[0041] – “…activating third indicator 330 may result in a red led light being turned on…” – i.e. when turned on, the red light shines regardless of threshold/severity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as disclosed by modified Worsham to include providing different colors based on the severity and illuminating using a same color (red) when turning on the first indicator taught by Luobikis. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective engine.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, modified Worsham discloses the controller and alert but does not disclose, wherein the controller is configured to provide the alert by further:
playing an audio alert with an audio system.
However, Ogden teaches,
playing an audio alert with an audio system (Col. 3, lines 11-35: “…an audio alerting device…” i.e. that generates an audio alert).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller as disclosed by modified Worsham to include audio alert generated by the audio alert system as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective operational issue.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Worsham further discloses, wherein the first alert indicator is disposed nearer to a first engine control knob than to others of the engine control knobs (See Examiner Illustration below that illustrates the location of alert and first engine control knob), the first engine control knob being associated with the first engine (Examiner Illustration shows first engine with first knob).
Examiner’s Illustration
PNG
media_image2.png
882
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Worsham discloses the engine control knobs but does not disclose, wherein the engine control panel further comprises engine labels disposed above the engine control knobs.
However, Ogden teaches, wherein the engine control panel further comprises engine labels disposed (FIG.1, #102, Col. 4, lines 21-55: “…the flight displays 102 may be configured to generate a display during an engine failure scenario,…”) above the engine control knobs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include engine labels as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective operational issue.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the engine labels are located above the engine control knobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the engine labels above the engine control knobs so as to have the labels and control knobs in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0026], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Worsham discloses the alert indicators and engine labels but does not disclose, wherein the alert indicators are disposed above the engine labels.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the alert indicators are located above the engine labels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the alert indicators above the engine labels so as to have the labels and alert indicators in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0013], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Worsham discloses the alert indicators and engine labels but does not disclose, wherein the alert indicators are disposed below the engine labels.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the alert indicators are located below the engine labels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the alert indicators above the engine labels so as to have the labels and alert indicators in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0013], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worsham, II et al. US 20190161203 A1 (herein, Worsham) and in view of Luobikis et al. US 20210122499 A1 (herein, Luobikis), Murthy, Ogden US 10242582 B1 (herein, Ogden), List et al. US 20240124152 A1 (herein, List) and in further view of V et al., US 20230021088 A1 (herein, V).
Regarding Claim 8, Worsham is commensurate with Claims 1discloses, an apparatus (FIG. 1, #101) comprising:
a display (FIGS. 4 and 8A-C, #245) but does not disclose, a display located in a primary field of view of an aircraft pilot, the display configured to render color-coded text based on an engine alert.
However, V teaches, a display located in a primary field of view of an aircraft pilot, the display configured to render color-coded text based on an engine alert (¶[0060] – “… cockpit can also use color-coding to visually distinguish text from background artifacts like Airway lines, terrain contours, symbols…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Worsham to include color-coded text as taught by V. Doing so improves the pilot’s situational awareness by providing information that is color-coded text that assists in the navigation the aircraft.
Worsham discloses an engine control panel (FIG. 4, #241) but does not disclose,
an engine control panel disposed below the display.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the engine control panel is located below the display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the engine control panel below the display so as to have in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0002-0004], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the location of the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Modified Worsham discloses,
the engine control panel comprising:
engine control knobs (See above Examiner’s Illustration); and
alert indicators above the engine control knobs (See above Claim 1, which is commensurate with this limitation), but does not disclose, the alert indicators comprising light bulbs that, when turned on, emit light in a single color that does not change, the alert indicators being different from the display, the display capable of rendering more colors than the alert indicators.
However, List teaches, the alert indicators comprising light bulbs (FIGS. 2A-B, ¶[0051] – “…Light-emitting components may include one or more light bulbs…”) that, when turned on (¶[0120] – “…such as during start-up,…”), emit light in a single color that does not change (¶0049] – “…display 136 may include a monochrome or color display…”), the display capable of rendering more colors than the alert indicators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the light bulbs that turn on and emit either monochrome or colors as taught by List. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert being a single color or other colors associated with the engine control panel.
Also, Murthy teaches, the alert indicators being different from the display (Page 8, per below illustration).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the alert indicators being different from the display as taught by Murthy. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert being a single color associated with a respective control knob.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Worsham discloses, wherein the light bulbs are light-emitting diodes (Luobikis ¶[0044]) .
Regarding Claim 11, modified Worsham further discloses, wherein the light bulbs, when turned on, emit white light (¶[0007] – “…colors…” – i.e., white is a color).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Worsham discloses the engine control panel and the alert indicators but does not disclose, wherein the engine control panel further comprises:
engine labels above the alert indicators.
However, Ogden teaches, wherein the engine control panel further comprises engine labels disposed (FIG.1, #102, Col. 4, lines 21-55: “…the flight displays 102 may be configured to generate a display during an engine failure scenario,…”) above the alert indicators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include engine labels as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective operational issue.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the engine labels are located above the alert indicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the engine labels above the alert indicators so as to have the labels and indicators in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0026], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Worsham discloses the engine control panel and the alert indicators but does not disclose, wherein the engine control panel further comprises:
engine labels below the alert indicators.
However, Ogden teaches, wherein the engine control panel further comprises engine labels disposed (FIG.1, #102, Col. 4, lines 21-55: “…the flight displays 102 may be configured to generate a display during an engine failure scenario,…”) below the alert indicators.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include engine labels as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and its association with the respective operational issue.
Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the engine labels are located above the alert indicators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the engine labels below the alert indicators so as to have the labels and indicators in close proximity so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0026], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worsham, II et al. US 20190161203 A1 (herein, Worsham) and in view of Luobikis et al. US 20210122499 A1 (herein, Luobikis), Ogden US 10242582 B1 (herein, Ogden), List et al. US 20240124152 A1 (herein, List), and in further view of Bell 525 crash in Texas (N525TA) (herein, Bell).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Worsham discloses the engine control knobs but does not disclose, wherein the engine control knobs are crank-off-start/idle-fly (COSIF) control knobs.
However, Bell teaches, wherein the engine control knobs are crank-off-start/idle-fly (COSIF) control knobs (Page 3/5, last paragraph – “…Directly above the GTCs were the engine control COSIF (crank, off, start, idle, fly) knobs….” and page 4/5 third paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include COSIF as taught by Bell. Doing so improved capability by using a single knob for multi-function purposes.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worsham, II et al. US 20190161203 A1 (herein, Worsham) and in view of Luobikis et al. US 20210122499 A1 (herein, Luobikis), Murthy – “Keys for airplanes?” (herein, Murthy), Ogden US 10242582 B1 (herein, Ogden), Nichols et al., US 20100211237 A1 (herein, Nichols), Baladi et al, US 20220097864 A1 (herein, Baladi), and in further view of James et al., US 20200218066 A1 (herein, James).
Regarding Claim 14 is commensurate with Claims 1 and 2 but includes the additional limitations:
receiving input (FIG. 4, ¶[0051] – “…a panel such as a Garmin® G1000™…” – i.e., receives and input from Garmin and #205) from an engine control knob (See above Examiner Illustration) associated with the engine; and
transmitting a control signal to the engine (¶[0029] – “…FCCs 205 may analyze pilot inputs and dispatch corresponding commands to the ECCUs 203…”).
Modified Worsham does not disclose, rendering text on a color display of the aircraft using different colors based on a severity of the alert, the color display located in a primary field of view of a pilot of the aircraft.
However, James teaches, rendering text on a color display of the aircraft using different colors based on a severity of the alert, the color display located in a primary field of view of a pilot of the aircraft (¶[0019] – “The stereoscopic colour display screen comprises a first and second screen, one for each respective view. Each screen comprises an array of light emitting pixels for forming images, and in particular may be an organic light emitting diode (OLED) type screen.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engine control panel as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the color display that’s a primary display as taught by James. Doing so improves the pilot’s situational awareness by providing color display while navigation the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Worsham discloses the text, alert, black (Ogden, monochrome) but does not disclose, wherein the text is rendered in black when the alert is an advisory alert, the text is rendered in yellow when the alert is a cautionary alert, and the text is rendered in red when the alert is a critical alert.
However, Luobikis teaches, wherein the text is rendered in black when the alert is an advisory alert, the text is rendered in yellow when the alert is a cautionary alert (¶[0034] – “…a second color, such as yellow, and may indicate when the evacuation system is due for service soon…”), and the text is rendered in red when the alert is a critical alert (¶[0034] – “…may comprise a third color, such as red, and may indicate when the evacuation system is currently due for service…” – i.e., if due for service then critical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Worsham to include the different colors for the different alerts as taught by Luobikis. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability address the alerts in a the appropriate sequence.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Worsham further discloses an advisory alert (¶[0007] – “…colors…” – i.e., white is a color and flight mode indicators) but does not disclose, wherein the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is an advisory alert, the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is a cautionary alert, and the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is a critical alert.
However, even though modified Worsham does not explicitly teach, wherein the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is an advisory alert, the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is a cautionary alert, and the alert indicator is illuminated in white when the alert is a critical alert.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Worsham to utilize white as a color based on the other color palette pertaining to the needs of the pilot to safely operate the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Worsham further discloses, wherein the engine control knob is one of a plurality of engine control knobs (See above Examiner’s Illustration for plurality of knobs), but does not disclose, and the alert indicator is disposed nearer to the engine control knob than to others of the engine control knobs.
However, modified Worsham discloses the above limitations except for that the alert indictor is nearer to the engine control knob than other knobs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the engine control knobs near the alert indicators so as to enhance the pilots control of the aircraft. As such, it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Please note that in the instant application, ¶[0026], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for location the claimed limitation. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding Claim 19 is commensurate with Claims 1 but includes the additional limitations that modified Worsham discloses, wherein the color display is disposed on a different surface of a cockpit (FIG. 1, #127) of the aircraft than the alert indicator.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Worsham further discloses a plurality of alert indicators and operation of the aircraft (See above Examiner’s Illustration and Luobikis ¶[0044]) and the alert indicator, aircraft, illumination but does not disclose, wherein the alert indicator is one of a plurality of alert indicators, and the method further comprises:
before operation of the aircraft, testing the alert indicators by illuminating each of the alert indicators for a predetermined duration of time.
However, Ogden teaches, wherein the alert indicator is one of a plurality of alert indicators, and the method further comprises:
before operation of the aircraft, testing the alert indicators by illuminating each of the alert indicators for a predetermined duration of time (Col. 10, lines 1-21 – “…amount of time the aircraft can glide before reaching the ground…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by modified Worsham to include testing the alert indicators for a predetermined period of time as taught by Ogden. Doing so improves the pilot’s capability to make decisions based on the alert and the time interval and its association with the respective operational issue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to aircraft and control knobs and displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666