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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of both dependent claim 2 and claim 6 in an independent claim 1 with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims would be allowable over the prior art of record.
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and KHATWA teaches “...generate....a graphical indicator informing the pilot that the processed sensor data is being displayed”. (see paragraph 17 where the device has a radar altimeter device and that can estimate the altimeter based on the radar system or a GPS device or a remote server device; see abstract where the device also has a barometric altimeter as a first altimeter device; and see claims 1-8 where the two readings may be the same however when the differ by a predetermined level the gauge will flash and change appearance in the altitude readout and provide a metered tape graphic to change an appearance as one is accurate and the other is not)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of KHATWA with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since KHATWA teaches that the pilot may set the pressure incorrectly. This can be lead to an incorrect altimeter setting. Then when there is a different between 1. The radar based altimeter reading. 2 the GPS based altimeter reading and/or 3. The server based altimeter reading the processor will then change the color, change the font, flash and change the text and gauge appearance. This will alert the pilot that the pressure based reading is likely off or vice versa and provide a correction that can provide a maintaining of the correct safe altitude.
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 and 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of U.S. Patent No.: 10373404 N2 to Curtis et al. that was filed in 2018 (hereinafter “CURTIS”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. NO.: US20090189787A1 to Khatwa that was filed in 2008.
Claims 1 and 10, and 19 are amended to recite and KHATWA teaches “...generate....a graphical indicator informing the pilot that the processed sensor data is being displayed”. (see paragraph 17 where the device has a radar altimeter device and that can estimate the altimeter based on the radar system or a GPS device or a remote server device; see abstract where the device also has a barometric altimeter as a first altimeter device; and see claims 1-8 where the two readings may be the same however when the differ by a predetermined level the gauge will flash and change appearance in the altitude readout and provide a metered tape graphic to change an appearance as one is accurate and the other is not)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of KHATWA with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since KHATWA teaches that the pilot may set the pressure incorrectly. This can be lead to an incorrect altimeter setting. Then when there is a different between 1. The radar based altimeter reading. 2 the GPS based altimeter reading and/or 3. The server based altimeter reading the processor will then change the color, change the font, flash and change the text and gauge appearance. This will alert the pilot that the pressure based reading is likely off or vice versa and provide a correction that can provide a maintaining of the correct safe altitude.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, and claim 10 and 19, Gelinske et al. discloses “1. A system for providing situational awareness to a pilot of an aircraft, the system comprising:
one or more electronic processors configured to: (See FIG. 7-9 where the AS flight software can provide multiple gauges with elevation data, pitch and position information)
receive a raw sensor value for an operational characteristic of the aircraft; (see paragraph 51 where the raw sensor data can include yaw, and pitch acceleration and compass and GPS information and paragraph 102 where the altitude can be provided)
generate a processed sensor value based on the raw sensor value;
provide the processed sensor value to a flight control system of the aircraft; (see paragraph 101-105 where the altitude can be displayed with a path on the GUI to show a variance from the intended flight path)
PNG
media_image2.png
898
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generate a first digital gauge object based on the operational characteristic of the aircraft, (see paragraph 84 where the display has a number of simulated gauge panels 72b)
wherein the first digital gauge object includes a graphical representation of the raw sensor value; (see paragraph 85-86 where when the user selects the actual data values 83 can be shown )
generate a second digital gauge object based on the operational characteristic of the aircraft, (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8)
PNG
media_image3.png
908
1278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the second digital gauge object includes a graphical representation of the processed sensor value and (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
a graphical representation indicating that the processed sensor value is being displayed; present,
on a first display of the aircraft, (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
the first digital gauge object; and present,
on a second display of the aircraft, the second digital gauge object”. (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8)”.
Claims 1 and 10 and 19 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Curtis teaches “...simultaneously with the presentation of the first digital gauge object on the first display”. (see Col. 4, lines 1-2 where the onboard reporting unit can provide the raw or the processed data that can be flight data for flight visualization)(see also col. 12, lines 1-23 where the 1. Raw data can be monitored as element 26, 46, 66, 86 and 106 and 2. The filtered data can be provided to the monitoring device and in FIG. 6 these can be visualized at the same time)(see also col. 18, lines 5-50 where the data set can show “raw data” for monitoring and storage and processed “snap shot data” and in col. 7, line 25 the processed data can be displayed and reported).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of CURTIS with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since CURTIS teaches that processed data and raw data can be captured and stored and displayed at the same time to provide a flexible display and that increases the capabilities of the aircraft and that can provide automatic reporting of these sensor and raw data to a remote location without human interaction. See col 1 and line 28 to col. 2, line 60 and claims 1-9.
PNG
media_image4.png
728
1060
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, and claim 10 and 19, Gelinske et al. is silent but Jahns teaches “...wherein the first and second digital gauge objects are dynamically configurable by the pilot during flight operations of the aircraft”. (see FIG. 2a where the display has a first enhanced view and a first minimized view 202, 206a; see claims 1-3 where the dynamic container can be displayed and the other gauges move to provide room for the dynamic container; see paragraph 55 where when a particular gauge goes into an out-of-parameter or a warning state that is in the background of sensors being monitored by the vehicle 102 (i.e., not currently included in the display of the instrument cluster 106 a and may not have an assigned position in the instrument cluster), the particular gauge may be dynamically displayed in a dynamic container 218.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of JAHNS with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since JAHNS teaches that an advantageous gauge display can provide a more salient emergency parameter. Then the display may move and make “room” for the more salient parameter and the new gauge by moving the gauge parameters and make them small for an emergency parameter. This can provide a remedial and preventive action and a moving red chasing gauge that can repeat and glow to provide an alarm of a warning. See paragraphs 70-73.
Claims 2-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of Curtis and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and KHATWA.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, and claim 11, Gelinske et al. discloses 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to: receive a user input indicative of either one of the first display or the second display, a sensor data type, and the operational characteristic of the aircraft; and present, on either one of the first display or the second display, either one of the first digital gauge object or the second digital gauge object, based on the sensor data type. (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8) (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
In regard to claim 3 and 12, Gelinske et al. discloses 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to: receive a second raw sensor value for the operational characteristic of the aircraft; and generate the processed sensor value based on the raw sensor value and the second raw sensor value. (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8) (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
PNG
media_image5.png
660
1222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4 and claim 13, Gelinske et al. discloses 4, The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to: generate a third digital gauge object based on the operational characteristic of the aircraft, wherein the third digital gauge object includes a graphical representation of the second raw sensor value; receive a user input indicative of either one of the first display or the second display, a sensor data type, and the operational characteristic of the aircraft; and present, on either one of the first display or the second display, one selected from the group consisting of the first digital gauge object, the second digital gauge object, and the third digital gauge object, based on the sensor data type. (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8) (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
PNG
media_image5.png
660
1222
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5 and 14, Gelinske et al. discloses 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to: responsive to determining that any of the first digital gauge object, the second digital gauge object, and the third digital gauge object is displayed on both of the first display and the second display,” (see paragraph 79-83 and FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8) (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation) generate an alert. (see claim 29 where if there is an error in the timestamps then an alert is provided)
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 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20160347469A1 to Welsh et al. that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Welsh”) and in view of Curtis and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and KHATWA.
PNG
media_image6.png
622
868
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6 and 15, The primary reference is silent but Welsh teaches “..6. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to: determine a reference value for the operational characteristic; wherein the first digital gauge object includes a graphical representation of the reference value; and wherein the second digital gauge object includes a second graphical representation of the reference value”. (see paragraph 8 and 60-70 where the aircraft has a box with a reference indicator when the aircraft is in the box then the correction must be applied to determine that a stall may occur; see paragraph 65-68 where a reference box is provided to indicate the danger of a stall and can include 1. Pitch angle, 2. The attitude restriction and for the pilot or autopilot to perform a recovery action)
In regard to claim 7 and 16, the primary reference is silent but Welsh teaches “..7. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to:
determine a difference between the raw sensor value and the processed sensor value; (see paragraph 34-39 where the raw sensor data of the angle of attack is shown and then processed to the image so called envelope to stay out of and if it the aircrafts cross the gui icon then a stall is likely and the pilot must move out of the reference area or do a controlled thrust dive operation)
compare the difference to a threshold for the operational characteristic; and (see paragraph 63)
when the difference exceeds the threshold, generate an alert indicating that there is a significant difference between what is displayed and one of the other sources of sensor data for the operational characteristic. (see paragraph 8 and 60-70 where the aircraft has a box with a reference indicator when the aircraft is in the box then the correction must be applied to determine that a stall may occur; see paragraph 65-68 where a reference box is provided to indicate the danger of a stall and can include 1. Pitch angle, 2. The attitude restriction and for the pilot or autopilot to perform a recovery action)
PNG
media_image7.png
708
970
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of WELSH with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since Welsh teaches that an advantageous gauge display can provide in FIG. 10c a so called predictive box display around the indicator 1004. This can provide a prediction of a likely stalling condition using the raw data shown and a processed data zone indicating to stay out of this area as a dangerous stall and flat spin can occur. Thus, an aircraft operator can be provided with a so called warning zone 1002 in FIG. 10b. This can indicate a dangerous pitching condition and a stall will result and the aircraft operator can provide a remedial and preventive action. See paragraphs 60-70.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of Curtis and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and KHATWA.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8 and 17, Gelinske et al. discloses 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the operational characteristic of the aircraft is one selected from the group consisting of an altitude of the aircraft, a velocity of the aircraft, an attitude of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, and a heading of the aircraft. (see FIG. 7-9 where the aircraft airspeed, altimeter, vertical speed and altitude indicator, heading indicator and turn coordinator are all shown as virtual indicators and the user can select and view the recorded data such as pitch that is the raw data in FIG. 8) (see paragraph 86 where the graph window can show the different flight parameters according to the event that are processed from the raw sensor data and provided as a processed 2 d graph showing 1. The speed in knots and 2 the attitude in feet and 3 the degrees of pitch or 4 the heading or 5 the roll and the time values so as to understand in a playback mode of operation)
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of Curtis and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and KHATWA.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 9 and 18, Gelinske et al. discloses 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the first display and the second display are one selected from the group consisting of a display integrated into the aircraft, a display of a mobile device in communication with the aircraft, a heads up display, a head mounted display, a remote control display, and a remote monitoring display. (see paragraph 65)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent No.: 2011/0171612 A1 to Gelinske et al. that was filed in 2010 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20160347469A1 to Welsh et al. that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Welsh”) and Curtis and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20210237576A1 to Jahns et al. that was filed in 2020 and KHATWA.
PNG
media_image6.png
622
868
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The primary reference is silent but Welsh teaches “..20. The system of claim 19, wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to:
responsive to determining that the first digital gauge object and the second digital gauge object each include the graphical representation of the processed sensor value, generate a first alert; and (see paragraph 34-39 where the raw sensor data of the angle of attack is shown and then processed to the image so called envelope to stay out of and if it the aircrafts cross the gui icon then a stall is likely and the pilot must move out of the reference area or do a controlled thrust dive operation)
responsive to determining that the first digital gauge object and the second digital gauge object each include the graphical representation of the raw sensor value, generate a second alert”. (see paragraph 8 and 60-70 where the aircraft has a box with a reference indicator when the aircraft is in the box then the correction must be applied to determine that a stall may occur; see paragraph 65-68 where a reference box is provided to indicate the danger of a stall and can include 1. Pitch angle, 2. The attitude restriction and for the pilot or autopilot to perform a recovery action and see paragraph 77-78 where a second aural warning can be provided with the second alert in paragraph 83)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of WELSH with the disclosure of GELINSKE with a reasonable expectation of success since Welsh teaches that an advantageous gauge display can provide in FIG. 10c a so called predictive box display around the indicator 1004. This can provide a prediction of a likely stalling condition using the raw data shown and a processed data zone indicating to stay out of this area as a dangerous stall and flat spin can occur. Thus, an aircraft operator can be provided with a so called warning zone 1002 in FIG. 10b. This can indicate a dangerous pitching condition and a stall will result and the aircraft operator can provide a remedial and preventive action. See paragraphs 60-70.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668