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 Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on February 10, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 10-17 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
Applicant has made adequate amendments to claims 10-17 in order to correct typos regarding the numbering of the dependent claims. Therefore, the objections to these claims are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120286975) in view of Doeppner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 8442706) and further in view of Auerbach (U.S. Patent No. 11598960).
Regarding claim 1, Thomson teaches: A system for displaying horizontal situational indicator (HSI) for a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, comprising: (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0017]: "…alternative embodiments of AMS (24) and primary flight display system (26) may be implemented within other aircraft, including, without limitation, helicopters [system within VTOL aircraft]." ; Paragraph [0018]: "FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary primary flight display screen (100) including an exemplary horizontal situation indicator (HSI) (102) displayed by primary flight display system (26) [HSI system].")
an aircraft control panel in a cockpit of the VTOL aircraft; and (Paragraph [0035]: "…cockpit display and input subsystem (316) includes the cockpit displays on which navigation information, aircraft flight parameter information, fuel and engine status, and other information are displayed [aircraft control panel in cockpit of VTOL aircraft].")
a HSI digital display that is located on the aircraft control panel and shows (Paragraph [0035]: "…cockpit display and input subsystem (316) includes the cockpit displays on which navigation information, aircraft flight parameter information, fuel and engine status, and other information are displayed [aircraft control panel in cockpit of VTOL aircraft]. […] Primary flight display screen (100) displays, without limitation, HSI (102) [HSI digital display]").
Thomson does not teach a fixed target symbol representing an intended landing point, a speed vector indicator that represents an approach direction and a predicted hover point relative to the fixed target symbol that represents the indented landing position, where the predicted hover point is calculated based on the speed, acceleration and turn rate of the VTOL aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (guiding VTOL flight path approach using a HSI), Doeppner, et al. teaches: a fixed target symbol representing an intended landing point, (Col. 12, lines 11-13: "The HOVER page (42P#3) combines, inter alia: the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol of landing point]")
a speed vector indicator that represents an approach direction and a predicted hover point relative to the fixed target symbol that represents the indented landing position, where the predicted hover point is calculated based on the speed, acceleration and turn rate of the VTOL aircraft, and (Col. 12, lines 27-31: "…velocity vector, which extends from the current aircraft position point, extends and retracts in proportion to aircraft ground speed. The direction of the velocity vector is equal to the angle between the ground track of the aircraft center of mass and the aircraft centerline [speed vector - approach direction for aircraft]." ; Col. 9, lines 15-22: "…approach mode (52) for the turn to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) in one non-limiting embodiment is based nominally on a standard rate turn function with adjustment of the turn rate and bank angle so as to arrive at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) tangentially and with minimal crosstrack error even in high crosswinds, up to a predetermined maximum permitted bank angle [turn rate]" ; Col. 12, lines 2-10: "In the disclosed, non-limiting embodiment, the HOVER page 42P#3 may include: reference to aircraft velocity, location relative to the planned landing area, altitude, and rate of descent. Trend information may also be provided to assist the aircrew in understanding what will be the future state of the aircraft. Additionally, the HOVER page may provide the aircrew with data fused symbology such that the aircrew is made aware of unsafe landing areas [information provided to pilots represents intended landing positions based on data and enables pilots to avoid unsafe landing areas]." ; Col. 12, lines 11-17: "The HOVER page (42P#3) combines, inter alia: the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol]; the aircraft velocity (velocity vector) [speed vector]; and the aircraft acceleration (acceleration ball movement relative velocity vector information) [dynamic target symbol] all on one display in a symbology format that improves approach, hover and landing/take-off [hover point prediction].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomson to include the teaching of Doeppner, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of facilitating the control of an approach of a VTOL aircraft using a HSI display (Doeppner, et al. Col. 1, lines 33-41, Col. 10, line 54 to Col. 11, line 1).
The combination of Thomson and Doeppner, et al. does not teach a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (head-up display for electric aircraft), Auerbach teaches: a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft (Col. 5, lines 45-49: "…FIG. 1, system (100) may be incorporated into a physical cockpit of the electric aircraft. The electric aircraft may include, but not limited to, an electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft [VTOL aircraft], an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), drone, etc." ; Col. 9, lines 26-45: "…FIG. 1, the augmented reality device of system (100) may include a pilot device (132). A "pilot device," for the purpose of this disclosure, is an interactive and functional electronic instrument within a physical cockpit used by a pilot that provides crucial information in flight. In a non-limiting embodiment, pilot device (132) may provide [...] a functional electronic horizontal situation indicator (EHSI) [horizontal situational indicator]" ; Col. 9, lines 59-64: "…the GUI may display a flight plan in graphical form. Graphical form may include a two-dimensional plot of two variables that represent data received by the controller, such as past maneuvers and predicted future maneuvers [predicted flight information - dynamic target symbol]." ; Col. 19, lines 51-57: "…FIG. 1, sensor (104) may be configured to detect measured aircraft data. A “measured aircraft data,” for the purpose of this disclosure, is a collection of information describing any data describing the operation, function, environmental factors, outside parameters, etc. that may be involved with the electric aircraft and its systems [sensor as part of system for measuring dynamic flight conditions]." ; Col. 20, lines 7-14: "…the plurality of maneuver data may include takeoffs and landings [dynamic flight conditions - positional change], […] crosswind takeoff and climb [crosswind changes - example 1], […] normal takeoff from a hover, vertical takeoff to a hover [hover point information - example 1], […] normal approach to a hover [hover point information - example 2], crosswind approach to the surface [crosswind changes - example 2], and the like.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson and Doeppner et al. to include the teaching of Auerbach based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of data of flight related features as a function of condition in a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle (Auerbach Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 6, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a two-dimensional (2D) perspective display (Thomson Paragraph [0027]: "…primary flight display system (26) to display HSI (102) [HSI digital display] and indicators (104), (120), and (140) with respect to any dimensions of primary flight display screen (100). The receding perspective angle of HSO (102) is adjusted automatically [flexible - two-dimensional perspective display].").
Regarding claim 7, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a three-dimensional (3D) perspective display (Thomson Paragraph [0015]: "The displayed HSI [HSI digital display] described herein is angled such that the indicator appears as a three-dimensional (3D) object on a two-dimensional (2D) display [specific - 3D perspective display].").
Regarding claim 8, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display correlates the fixed target symbol, the speed vector indicator and the dynamic target symbol with flight performance and conditions of the VTOL aircraft (Doeppner, et al. Col. 3, lines 12-16: "The aircraft flight control system (20) includes a plurality of interconnected systems to assist an aircrew with flight operations of a vertical take off and landing (VTOL) aircraft such as a rotary wing aircraft [VTOL aircraft control system]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 6, lines 5-6: "The module (50) may obtain aircraft dynamic state, ambient conditions as well as other data from the data bus (22) [obtaining flight performance and conditions]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 10, lines 59-63: "…a pseudo localizer course indication symbology is depicted on the Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) [HSI display range]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 12, lines 11-17: "…the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol]; the aircraft velocity (velocity vector) [speed vector]; and the aircraft acceleration (acceleration ball movement relative velocity vector information) [dynamic target symbol] all on one display in a symbology format that improves approach, hover and landing/take-off.").
Regarding claim 9, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of Claim 1, where the HSI display range is adjusted automatically to maintain landing point and hover vector inside the display area (Doeppner, et al. Col. 10, lines 59-63: "…a pseudo localizer course indication symbology is depicted on the Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) [HSI display range]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 12, lines 11-17: "…HOVER page (42P#3) combines, inter alia: the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point); the aircraft velocity (velocity vector); and the aircraft acceleration (acceleration ball movement relative velocity vector information all on one display in a symbology format that improves approach, hover and landing/take-off [maintain landing point and hover vector]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 12, lines 24-26: "When the velocity vector and acceleration ball are contained within the auto deceleration constraint circle, automatic hover control is initiated [automatic control conditions].").
Regarding claim 10, Thomson teaches: A method for displaying horizontal situational indicator (HSI) for a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft, comprising: providing an aircraft control panel in a cockpit of the VTOL aircraft; (Method (200), Steps (202-204), Figs. 1-5, Paragraph [0029]: "…method (200) of displaying HSI (102) (shown in FIG. 3) for aircraft (10) (shown in FIG. 1). In the exemplary embodiment, method (200) includes providing (202) a memory device (304) operatively coupled to a processor (302) (both shown in FIG. 6). Memory device (304) includes programmed computer instructions that instruct (204) processor (302) to display at least a portion of primary flight display screen (100) (shown in FIG. 2) having a predetermined height H (shown in FIG. 2) [processor in control panel in cockpit of VTOL aircraft].")
and showing on a HSI digital display that is located on the aircraft control panel (Step (216), Figs. 3-4, Paragraph [0031]: "…primary flight display screen (100) displays (214) HSI (102) in the form of a compass. Primary flight display screen (100) displays (216) HSI (102) with cardinal headings (172), numerical values (174), and discrete increments (176) (all shown in FIG. 3) [HSI digital display on aircraft control panel]").
Thomson does not teach a fixed target symbol representing an intended landing point, a speed vector indicator that represents an approach direction and a predicted hover point relative to the fixed target symbol that represents the intended landing position, where the predicted hover point is calculated based on the speed, acceleration and turn rate of the VTOL aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (guiding VTOL flight path approach using a HSI), Doeppner, et al. teaches: a fixed target symbol representing an intended landing point, (Action (260), Fig. 3, Col. 12, lines 11-13: "The HOVER page (42P#3) combines, inter alia: the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol of landing point]")
a speed vector indicator that represents an approach direction and a predicted hover point relative to the fixed target symbol that represents the intended landing position, where the predicted hover point is calculated based on the speed, acceleration and turn rate of the VTOL aircraft (Action (260), Fig. 3, Col. 12, lines 27-31: "…velocity vector, which extends from the current aircraft position point, extends and retracts in proportion to aircraft ground speed. The direction of the velocity vector is equal to the angle between the ground track of the aircraft center of mass and the aircraft centerline [speed vector - approach direction for aircraft]." ; Action (230), Fig. 3, Col. 9, lines 10-22: "…FIG. 9, the offshore approach mode (52) uses a curved approach procedure to align the aircraft with the final approach course (Action 230; FIG. 3). [...] The offshore approach mode (52) for the turn to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) in one non-limiting embodiment is based nominally on a standard rate turn function with adjustment of the turn rate and bank angle so as to arrive at the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) tangentially and with minimal crosstrack error even in high crosswinds, up to a predetermined maximum permitted bank angle [turn rate]" ; Action (260), Fig. 3, Col. 12, lines 2-10: "In the disclosed, non-limiting embodiment, the HOVER page 42P#3 may include: reference to aircraft velocity, location relative to the planned landing area, altitude, and rate of descent. Trend information may also be provided to assist the aircrew in understanding what will be the future state of the aircraft. Additionally, the HOVER page may provide the aircrew with data fused symbology such that the aircrew is made aware of unsafe landing areas [information provided to pilots represents intended landing positions based on data and enables pilots to avoid unsafe landing areas]." ; Action (260), Fig. 3, Col. 12, lines 11-17: "The HOVER page (42P#3) combines, inter alia: the distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol]; the aircraft velocity (velocity vector) [speed vector]; and the aircraft acceleration (acceleration ball movement relative velocity vector information) [dynamic target symbol] all on one display in a symbology format that improves approach, hover and landing/take-off [hover point prediction].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thomson to include the teaching of Doeppner, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of facilitating the control of an approach of a VTOL aircraft using a HSI display (Doeppner, et al. Col. 1, lines 33-41, Col. 10, line 54 to Col. 11, line 1).
The combination of Thomson and Doeppner, et al. does not teach and a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (head-up display for electric aircraft), Auerbach teaches: and a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft (Col. 5, lines 45-49: "…FIG. 1, system (100) may be incorporated into a physical cockpit of the electric aircraft. The electric aircraft may include, but not limited to, an electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft [VTOL aircraft], an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), drone, etc." ; Col. 9, lines 26-45: "…FIG. 1, the augmented reality device of system (100) may include a pilot device (132). A "pilot device," for the purpose of this disclosure, is an interactive and functional electronic instrument within a physical cockpit used by a pilot that provides crucial information in flight. In a non-limiting embodiment, pilot device (132) may provide [...] a functional electronic horizontal situation indicator (EHSI) [horizontal situational indicator]" ; Col. 9, lines 59-64: "…the GUI may display a flight plan in graphical form. Graphical form may include a two-dimensional plot of two variables that represent data received by the controller, such as past maneuvers and predicted future maneuvers [predicted flight information - dynamic target symbol]." ; Col. 19, lines 51-57: "…FIG. 1, sensor (104) may be configured to detect measured aircraft data. A “measured aircraft data,” for the purpose of this disclosure, is a collection of information describing any data describing the operation, function, environmental factors, outside parameters, etc. that may be involved with the electric aircraft and its systems [sensor as part of system for measuring dynamic flight conditions]." ; Col. 20, lines 7-14: "…the plurality of maneuver data may include takeoffs and landings [dynamic flight conditions - positional change], […] crosswind takeoff and climb [crosswind changes - example 1], […] normal takeoff from a hover, vertical takeoff to a hover [hover point information - example 1], […] normal approach to a hover [hover point information - example 2], crosswind approach to the surface [crosswind changes - example 2], and the like.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson and Doeppner, et al. to include the teaching of Auerbach based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of data of flight related features as a function of condition in a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicle (Auerbach Col. 2, line 66 to Col. 3, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 15, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a two-dimensional (2D) perspective display (Thomson Paragraph [0027]: "…primary flight display system (26) to display HSI (102) [HSI digital display] and indicators (104), (120), and (140) with respect to any dimensions of primary flight display screen (100). The receding perspective angle of HSO (102) is adjusted automatically [flexible - two-dimensional perspective display].").
Regarding claim 16, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a three-dimensional (3D) perspective display (Thomson Paragraph [0015]: "The displayed HSI [HSI digital display] described herein is angled such that the indicator appears as a three-dimensional (3D) object on a two-dimensional (2D) display [3D perspective display].").
Regarding claim 17, Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display correlates the fixed target symbol, the speed vector indicator and the dynamic target symbol with flight performance and conditions of the VTOL aircraft (Doeppner, et al. Col. 3, lines 12-16: "The aircraft flight control system (20) includes a plurality of interconnected systems to assist an aircrew with flight operations of a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft such as a rotary wing aircraft [VTOL aircraft control system]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 6, lines 5-6: "The module (50) may obtain aircraft dynamic state, ambient conditions as well as other data from the data bus (22) [obtaining flight performance and conditions]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 10, lines 59-63: "…a pseudo localizer course indication symbology is depicted on the Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) [HSI display range]." ; Doeppner, et al. Col. 12, lines 11-17: "…distance (relative position between current aircraft position and desired landing point) [fixed target symbol]; the aircraft velocity (velocity vector) [speed vector]; and the aircraft acceleration (acceleration ball movement relative velocity vector information) [dynamic target symbol] all on one display in a symbology format that improves approach, hover and landing/take-off.").
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120286975), Doeppner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 8442706), and Auerbach (U.S. Patent No. 11598960) in view of Sauer (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230271721).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the system of Claim 1, where the VTOL aircraft comprises an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor (support for flight operations of VTOL aircraft), Sauer teaches: The system of Claim 1, where the VTOL aircraft comprises an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle (Paragraph [0027]: "…VTOL aircraft (204) may travel in at least one urban air mobility (UAM) environment (208) [VTOL aircraft comprises UAM vehicle]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Sauer based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the flight operations of VTOL aircraft in an urban air mobility (UAM) environment (Sauer Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the method of Claim 10, where the VTOL aircraft comprises an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle.
In a similar field of endeavor (support for flight operations of VTOL aircraft), Sauer teaches: The method of Claim 10, where the VTOL aircraft comprises an urban air mobility (UAM) vehicle (Paragraph [0027]: "…VTOL aircraft (204) may travel in at least one urban air mobility (UAM) environment (208) [VTOL aircraft comprises UAM vehicle]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Sauer based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the flight operations of VTOL aircraft in an urban air mobility (UAM) environment (Sauer Paragraph [0005]).
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120286975), Doeppner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 8442706), and Auerbach (U.S. Patent No. 11598960) in view of Still, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9091545).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the system of Claim 1, where the VTOL aircraft comprises a helicopter.
In a similar field of endeavor (motion-resolving hover display for aircraft), Still, et al. teaches:
The system of Claim 1, where the VTOL aircraft comprises a helicopter (Figs 11-25, Col. 8, lines 41-46: "…The right-hand portion shows a perspective view of a helicopter [helicopter]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Still, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of a flight instrument which conveys attitude and motion behavior of a hovering aircraft to its pilot (Still, et al. Col. 1, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a hover display.
In a similar field of endeavor (motion-resolving hover display for aircraft), Still, et al. teaches: The system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a hover display (Figs 11-25, Col. 8, lines 41-46: "…while the left-hand portion shows the hover display. The objects within the hover display reflect the current state of the helicopter shown in the adjacent perspective view (as will be true for FIGS. 12-25) [hover display with respect to helicopter].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Still, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of a flight instrument which conveys attitude and motion behavior of a hovering aircraft to its pilot (Still, et al. Col. 1, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the method of Claim 10, where the VTOL aircraft comprises a helicopter.
In a similar field of endeavor (motion-resolving hover display for aircraft), Still, et al. teaches: The method of Claim 10, where the VTOL aircraft comprises a helicopter (Figs 11-25, Col. 8, lines 41-46: "The right-hand portion shows a perspective view of a helicopter [helicopter]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Still, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of a flight instrument which conveys attitude and motion behavior of a hovering aircraft to its pilot (Still, et al. Col. 1, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a hover display.
In a similar field of endeavor (motion-resolving hover display for aircraft), Still, et al. teaches: The method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a hover display (Figs 11-25, Col. 8, lines 41-46: "…while the left-hand portion shows the hover display. The objects within the hover display reflect the current state of the helicopter shown in the adjacent perspective view (as will be true for FIGS. 12-25) [hover display with respect to helicopter].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Still, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of a flight instrument which conveys attitude and motion behavior of a hovering aircraft to its pilot (Still, et al. Col. 1, lines 20-24).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120286975), Doeppner, et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 8442706), and Auerbach (U.S. Patent No. 11598960) in view of Oranskiy, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9109147).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a top-down view display.
In a similar field of endeavor (displaying weather information to pilots via HSI), Oranskiy, et al. teaches: The system of Claim 1, where HSI digital display comprises a top-down view display (Col. 2, lines 63-66: "…flight displays (20) may provide a top-down view [top-down view]" ; Col. 7, lines 65-67: "…HSI image in one exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 9. A HSI may be employed to display weather information [HSI digital display]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Oranskiy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of vertical weather information to aircraft pilots via a HSI (Oranskiy, et al. Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach do not teach the method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a top-down view display.
In a similar field of endeavor (displaying weather information to pilots via HSI), Oranskiy, et al. teaches: The method of Claim 10, where HSI digital display comprises a top-down view display (Col. 2, lines 63-66: "…flight displays (20) may provide a top-down view [top-down view], a horizontal view, or any other view of weather and/or terrain detected by a radar system on the aircraft." ; Col. 7, lines 65-67: "…HSI image in one exemplary embodiment is shown in FIG. 9. A HSI may be employed to display weather information [HSI digital display]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., and Auerbach to include the teaching of Oranskiy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the display of vertical weather information to aircraft pilots via a HSI (Oranskiy, et al. Col. 7, line 53 to Col. 8, lines 1-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that claim 1 was patentable over Thomson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120286975) in view of Doeppner, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8442706) and in further view of Auerbach (U.S. Patent No. 11598960) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft”. Specifically, Applicant asserted that Auerbach does not teach the dynamic target symbol. The examiner disagrees. In Auerbach, as shown in Fig. 1, the use of sensor data in the aircraft datum (108) involves the collection of various maneuver information which contains “…any information of dynamic objects in a computer readable collection. A “dynamic object,” for the purpose of this disclosure, is any moving or altering object that may affect the operation of the electric aircraft and it’s systems” (Col. 20, line 60 to Col. 21, lines 1-3). Then, as also illustrated on Fig. 1, this dynamic targeting information is then submitted to a pilot device (132) containing a graphical user interface (GUI), which allows the display of a dynamic targeting symbol, which includes “…a two-dimensional plot of two variables that represent data received by the controller, such as past maneuvers and predicted future maneuvers”, which is interpretive of dynamic target symbology (Col. 9, lines 59-64). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Auerbach with Thomson and Doeppner, et al. because Thomson teaches a HSI digital display and aircraft control panel in the cockpit of a VTOL aircraft (Paragraph [0035]) and Doeppner, et al. teaches a fixed target symbol representing an intended landing point (Col. 12, lines 11-13) and a speed vector that represents an approach direction and predicted hover point relative to a fixed target symbol that represents the intended landing position in which the predicted hover point is calculated as a function of the speed, acceleration, and turn rate of the VTOL aircraft (Col. 12, lines 27-31, Col. 9, lines 15-22, Col. 12, lines 2-10, and Col. 12, lines 11-17).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Thomson, Doeppner, et al., Auerbach reads on the claim limitation “a dynamic target symbol representing a positional change in the predicted hover point in response to dynamic cross-wind changes in flight conditions for the VTOL aircraft”, as stated in claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Langner, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7626515) teaches various processes in order to provide integrated control and customizable presentation of navigation related flight information data on a multifunction display (MFD) within a cockpit.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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 Y ORTIZ can be reached on 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights