DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks pages 7-12, filed on 09/08/2025, with respect to claims 9 & 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 9 & 15 has been withdrawn.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks pages 7-12, filed on 09/08/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Regarding argued claim elements, for claims 1-11 & 13-20, Fisher`585, US 20220324585A1, and for claim 12, in view of DeJonge et al., US 20100114406 A1, discloses, teaches, or suggests, expressly or inherently, the argued claim elements, as shown on the office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 and 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Fisher`585, Pub. No.: US 20220324585 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 17, Fisher`585 discloses an aviation instrument for use by a pilot of a multi-engine aircraft in the event of loss or reduction of functionality of an engine of the multi-engine aircraft, (Claim 17 only: the aircraft including a rudder controlled by left and right rudder pedals, the multi-engine aircraft also including flaps controlled by a flap control device)), the aviation instrument comprising:
a display device; and processing circuitry coupled to the display device and configured to control the display device to display a performance indication graphic (Fisher`585: See para. [0027]-[0028] FIGS. 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 then show a variety of exemplary displays 300, 500, 600, 800, 900, and 1000 as they might appear within the cockpit of the aircraft 100 during the angle of attack and sideslip conditions seen in FIGS. 2, 4, and 7” & [0036] Values for the angle of attack and sideslip angle values associated with each indicium may be stored in, or calculated by, a processor within or associated with the display (i.e., a microprocessor, application-specific integrated circuit, programmable logic device, or other programmed or programmable device or equivalent circuitry). The values need not be uniform for all aircraft, as critical angles of attack and critical sideslip angles vary with aircraft configuration, and they need not be static values for a given aircraft, and may (for example) be adjusted with the aircraft's air speed, configuration (e.g., adding flaps, extending landing gear, etc.), and/or other factors such that deviation from the display datum can indicate potentially problematic flight conditions.
which indicates to the pilot corrective action needed to control the multi-engine aircraft to counteract adverse yaw motion caused by the event of loss or reduction of functionality of the one engine of the multi-engine aircraft ([0013] “the display's appearance changes along the pitch/vertical axis in dependence on an aircraft angle of attack signal generated by an angle of attack sensor provided on the aircraft 100 (e.g., the vane sensor 102 of FIG. 1), and the display's appearance changes along the sideslip/horizontal axis in dependence on an aircraft sideslip signal generated by a sideslip sensor provided on the aircraft 100 (e.g., the vane sensor 106 of FIG. 1). The display therefore provides intuitive feedback to a pilot regarding the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle, thereby better allowing the pilot to compensate for potentially dangerous conditions, and allowing a pilot to more readily identify a failed engine on a multi-engine aircraft. This feedback is particularly useful in emergency situations, as knowledge of the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle can allow a pilot to maintain maximum climb capability while avoiding dangerous stall/spins and Vmc rolls. The display allows a pilot to readily adjust controls for zero side-slip (lowest drag conditions) about the aircraft's vertical axis, and optimum angle of attack about the aircraft's pitch axis, in a single clear and concise display atop the pilot's glare shield (or other conveniently-viewed location).)
(claim 17 only) the corrective action indicated by the performance indication graphic including an indication of which of the left and right rudder pedals should be deflected to deflect the rudder and thereby counteract the adverse yaw motion of the multi-engine aircraft wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the display device to indicate to the pilot of the multi-engine aircraft an optimum angle of attack for the aircraft, responsive to the event of loss or reduction of functionality of the one engine of the multi-engine aircraft ([0010] When the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b2) and with at least some predefined degree of leftward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a2), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3b, illuminating a left sideslip region 304 to the right of the display datum 302 to indicate that right rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.” & [0011] Conversely, when the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b3) and with at least some predefined degree of rightward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a3), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3c, illuminating a right sideslip region 306 to the left of the display datum 302 to indicate that left rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.” & [0030] When the aircraft's angle of attack is within an acceptable range but the aircraft 100 begins to experience potentially problematic leftward sideslip (as exemplified by FIGS. 4a2 and 4b2, e.g., a sideslip angle of 2 degrees or more), the first indicium 510 to the right of the display datum 502 similarly changes its appearance as in FIG. 5b, indicating that the aircraft's rudder can be moved rightwardly to return the aircraft 100 to the acceptable sideslip angle range. If the aircraft 100 thereafter experiences further leftward sideslip exceeding the range represented by the first indicium 510 (e.g., greater than 5 degrees), the second indicium 512 from the display datum 502 could also change its appearance. Subsequent indicia will thereafter change their appearance as the sideslip angle range for the prior indicium is exceeded. Conversely, each indicium preferably reverts to its original appearance once the aircraft's leftward sideslip drops to a level below the range of sideslip angles represented by the indicium.” & See also para.[0036] ).
Regarding claims 2-3, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 1,
(claim 2) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the display device to indicate to the pilot of the multi-engine aircraft an optimum angle of attack for the multi-engine aircraft, responsive to the event of loss or reduction of functionality of the one engine of the aircraft (As in claims 1 & 17, see para.[0030], [0036]).
(claim 3) wherein the optimum angle of attack for the multi-engine aircraft indicated by the display device is an angle of attack determined to provide a maximum climb or a minimum sink to optimize performance of the multi-engine aircraft (As in claims 1 & 17, see para.[0013] “The display therefore provides intuitive feedback to a pilot regarding the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle, thereby better allowing the pilot to compensate for potentially dangerous conditions, and allowing a pilot to more readily identify a failed engine on a multi-engine aircraft. This feedback is particularly useful in emergency situations, as knowledge of the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle can allow a pilot to maintain maximum climb capability while avoiding dangerous stall/spins and Vmc rolls. The display allows a pilot to readily adjust controls for zero side-slip (lowest drag conditions) about the aircraft's vertical axis, and optimum angle of attack about the aircraft's pitch axis, in a single clear and concise display atop the pilot's glare shield (or other conveniently-viewed location).).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to automatically activate the aviation instrument upon sensing of excessive yaw motion of the multi-engine aircraft ([0005] “These AoA indicators receive signals from AoA sensors, and provide visual, tactile, audio, and/or other feedback to a pilot to indicate when the critical angle of attack is approached or exceeded, thereby helping a pilot avoid stall. AoA sensors may take a variety of forms and may operate using different principles, with common AoA sensors”).
Examiner remarks: [0026] “angle of attack (AoA) sensors 102 and 104 and sideslip sensors 106 and 108” provide sensing results to the display /indicator/ automatically (“implicit” for a person skilled in the art, meaning “automatically activate the aviation instrument”).
Regarding claims 5-10 & 13, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 1,
(claim 5) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the display device to display the performance indication graphic to indicate to the pilot which direction a rudder of the multi-engine aircraft should be deflected to counteract the adverse yaw ([0010] When the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b2) and with at least some predefined degree of leftward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a2), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3b, illuminating a left sideslip region 304 to the right of the display datum 302 to indicate that right rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.” & [0011] Conversely, when the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b3) and with at least some predefined degree of rightward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a3), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3c, illuminating a right sideslip region 306 to the left of the display datum 302 to indicate that left rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.”),
(claim 6) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the display device to display the performance indication graphic to indicate to the pilot an amount of rudder deflection required to counteract the adverse yaw ([0030] When the aircraft's angle of attack is within an acceptable range but the aircraft 100 begins to experience potentially problematic leftward sideslip (as exemplified by FIGS. 4a2 and 4b2, e.g., a sideslip angle of 2 degrees or more), the first indicium 510 to the right of the display datum 502 similarly changes its appearance as in FIG. 5b, indicating that the aircraft's rudder can be moved rightwardly to return the aircraft 100 to the acceptable sideslip angle range. If the aircraft 100 thereafter experiences further leftward sideslip exceeding the range represented by the first indicium 510 (e.g., greater than 5 degrees), the second indicium 512 from the display datum 502 could also change its appearance. Subsequent indicia will thereafter change their appearance as the sideslip angle range for the prior indicium is exceeded. Conversely, each indicium preferably reverts to its original appearance once the aircraft's leftward sideslip drops to a level below the range of sideslip angles represented by the indicium.),
(claim 7) wherein the performance indication graphic is a performance indication bar extending between left and right sides of the display device,
(claim 8) wherein an orientation of the performance indication bar is indicative of an actual level horizon
([0028] “a sideslip region, including a left sideslip region 504 and a right sideslip region 506, extends laterally from the display datum 502. The left sideslip region 504 is situated to the right of the display datum 502, with the left sideslip region 504 representing a state wherein the aircraft's sideslip angle is leftward versus the datum sideslip angle (i.e., the aircraft's nose is situated leftwardly, and the aircraft's tail is situated rightwardly, versus the datum sideslip angle, as exemplified by FIGS. 2a2, 4a2, and 7a2). Conversely, the right sideslip region 506 is situated to the left of the display datum 502, with the right sideslip region 506 representing a state wherein the aircraft's sideslip angle is rightward versus the datum sideslip angle (i.e., the aircraft's nose is situated rightwardly, and the aircraft's tail is situated leftwardly, versus the datum sideslip angle, as exemplified by FIGS. 2a3, 4a3, and 7a3).),
(claim 9) wherein the display device is controlled by the processing circuitry such that the performance indication bar includes a thicker portion on one of the left and right sides of the display relative to the other of the left and right sides of the display to indicate which direction the rudder of the multi-engine aircraft should be deflected to counteract the adverse yaw,
(claim 13) wherein the performance indication graphic includes a differential indication on one of the left and right sides of the display relative to the other of the left and right sides of the display to indicate which direction the rudder of the multi-engine aircraft should be deflected to counteract the adverse yaw,
(claim 10) wherein the display device is controlled by the processing circuitry such that a length of the thicker portion of the performance indication bar is indicative of the amount of rudder deflection required to counteract the adverse yaw ([0010] When the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b2) and with at least some predefined degree of leftward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a2), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3b, illuminating a left sideslip region 304 to the right of the display datum 302 to indicate that right rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.” & [0011] Conversely, when the aircraft 100 is flying with an acceptable angle of attack (as represented by FIG. 2b3) and with at least some predefined degree of rightward sideslip (as represented by FIG. 2a3), the appearance of the display 300 changes along the sideslip axis as seen in FIG. 3c, illuminating a right sideslip region 306 to the left of the display datum 302 to indicate that left rudder should be applied to remedy the sideslip.”).
Regarding claims 11 & 20, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 7 & claim 17, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the display device to display an aircraft representation with the performance indication bar, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the display device to display the aircraft representation and the performance indication bar such that an orientation of the performance indication bar relative to the multi-engine aircraft representation indicates to the pilot a required bank angle of the aircraft in a direction of a non-failed engine ([0003]-[0004] & 0[0013] “the display's appearance changes along the sideslip/horizontal axis in dependence on an aircraft sideslip signal generated by a sideslip sensor provided on the aircraft 100 (e.g., the vane sensor 106 of FIG. 1). The display therefore provides intuitive feedback to a pilot regarding the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle, thereby better allowing the pilot to compensate for potentially dangerous conditions, and allowing a pilot to more readily identify a failed engine on a multi-engine aircraft. This feedback is particularly useful in emergency situations, as knowledge of the aircraft's angle of attack and sideslip angle can allow a pilot to maintain maximum climb capability while avoiding dangerous stall/spins and Vmc rolls. The display allows a pilot to readily adjust controls for zero side-slip (lowest drag conditions) about the aircraft's vertical axis, and optimum angle of attack about the aircraft's pitch axis, in a single clear and concise display atop the pilot's glare shield (or other conveniently-viewed location).).
Regarding claim 14-16, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 6,
(claim 14) wherein the differential indication includes a colored portion of a background which changes area proportional to an amount of additional rudder required,
(claim 15) wherein the display device includes a left side indicator and a right side indicator, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the display device to illuminate one of the left-side indicator and the right-side indicator to indicate to the pilot which direction the rudder of the multi-engine aircraft should be deflected to counteract the adverse yaw,
(claim 16) wherein the processing circuitry is configured such that if the excessive yaw motion of the multi-engine aircraft is determined to have been eliminated but the rudder is still deflected, the display device is controlled to indicate to the pilot to continue corrective action needed to control the multi-engine aircraft until both the yaw is eliminated and the rudder is not deflected
([0027] FIGS. 3, 5, 6, and 8-10 … The display may be provided as any common display, e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting diode display (OLED), inorganic light emitting diode display (LED), plasma display panel (PDP), or electrophoretic display, or may be simply provided as a surface having lamps thereon, with the lamps arrayed such that they provide the functions described herein when illuminated (or deenergized).” & [0035] FIGS. 8-10 then illustrate alternative displays 800, 900, and 1000 using different types and numbers of indicia. Displays may use any suitable type and any suitable number of indicia, and some or all of the indicia of any one of the displays of FIGS. 3, 5, 6 and 8-10 may be replaced with some or all of the indicia of any other of the displays. Indicia need not be spaced apart as in the illustrated displays, and could be presented contiguously (edge-to-edge) on a display. Indicia may be presented in different colors and with different emphases, e.g., the display datum could be presented in green, with succeeding indicia (representing greater angle of attack and/or sideslip angle) being presented in yellow (possibly with greater illumination intensity), and with further succeeding indicia (representing even greater angle of attack and/or sideslip angle) being presented in red (and possibly with even greater illumination intensity). In all cases, the display may illuminate (or otherwise change the appearance of) the indicium representing the aircraft's current angle of attack and sideslip angle, the datum indicium, and all indicia therebetween. Alternatively, the display might only illuminate (or otherwise change the appearance of) the indicium representing the aircraft's current angle of attack and sideslip angle. Transitions to greater angle of attack and/or sideslip angle may be accompanied by audio or tactile signals to the pilot as well.).
Regarding claims 18-19, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 17.
(claim 18) wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the display device to indicate to the pilot an optimum direction and angle of bank of the multi-engine aircraft, responsive to the event of loss or reduction of functionality of the engine of the multi-engine aircraft,
(claim 19) wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify an aircraft flap position based upon a flap position sensor output, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to modify the optimum angle of attack for the multi-engine aircraft based upon the identified flap position
(As in claims 17 and 11, see para. [0013] & [0036]).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher`585, Pub. No.: US 20220324585 A1 in view of DeJonge et al., Pub. No.: US 20100114406 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Fisher`585 discloses the aviation instrument of claim 11.
Fisher`585 is not explicit on “artificial horizon line”. However, DeJonge et al., US 20100114406 A1, teaches METHOD AND SYSTEMS FOR REQUIRED TIME OF ARRIVAL PERFORMANCE DISPLAY and discloses,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the display device to display an artificial horizon line relative to the aircraft representation and the performance indication bar ([0020] “An artificial horizon is provided by line 120 between an upper more lightly shaded area 122 representing the sky and a lower darker area 124 for ground shading. In addition, area 124 includes a digital readout 126 of the radio or (radar) altitude, which displays the current height of the aircraft above the ground.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by DeJonge et al. with the system disclosed by Fisher`585 in order to provide a forward field of view display system including a graphic display screen with a plurality of indicating areas (See Abstract & para. [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited.
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 Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/Jalal C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665