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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of India on 11/24/2022, and all certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathol (11,182,970) in view of Seetharam (2014/0039792) and Berman et al. (2022/0357714).
With regard to claim 1, Kathol teaches a cabin management control device, comprising: a computing device comprising a touchscreen, the computing device including at least one processor and in communication with at least one of an aircraft network and a cabin controller (Figs. 1-2, col. 4, lines 37-67, col. 7: lines 28-39, col. 9, lines 35-37)
the computing device configured to display via the touchscreen at least one graphical user interface (GUI) configured to control cabin features corresponding to an aircraft cabin (col. 5, lines 45- 54, col. 7: lines: 28-56, col. 8, line 57 – col. 9: line 4) wherein the computing device is configured to:
receive flight data (Figs. 7-8, element 802, col. 10, lines 35-42);
receive camera feed data (col. 4, lines 37-45; col. 8, lines 20-21; col. 10, lines 43-44);
determine whether to display the camera feed data on the GUI based on the flight data, display the camera feed data on the GUI based on the determining and direct, based on the flight data, an automatic adjustment of the cabin features, wherein the cabin features include at least one of: a window level of one or more window shades or a cabin lighting level of one or more lights (Fig. 7, col. 1: lines 19-36; col. 3: lines 22-42; col. 4, line 37-45; col. 5: lines 1-34; col. 6: lines 30-47; col. 7, lines 17-56; col. 10: lines 8-24, 35-44 – A camera can capture video of outside of the aircraft or inside of the aircraft and feed the data/output the video to an aircraft window/computing device for a presentation (on the GUI) to a user. For example, a user can decide to look outside of the window and see a point of interest (e.g., a lake, city), and the camera feed can capture it and identify the lake. Further, the system may control the amount of opacity of an electrochromic layer of the window, receive aircraft data including information of a location, an altitude, generate point of interest content aligned with a user’s view based at least on the aircraft data. The electrochromic layer may serve as both an electronically controlled widow shade (which can be transitioned between open and closed) and a dark background for when the window is used as a standard display. The system can further be configured to output graphical non-AR content, which can include cabin control information (e.g., cabin lighting).),
wherein the camera feed data is a camera feed of a point of interest (POI) related to a flight path (Fig. 7, col. 3: lines 22-42; col. 4: lines 37-45; col. 7: lines 17-39; col. 10: lines 8-24 – The camera can capture video of outside of the aircraft and a POI identifier can identify the POI (e.g., a lake, city). The POI is clearly related to the flight path since it can be seen by a user),
wherein the displaying is configured to display the camera feed data as a live camera feed data of the POI (Fig. 7, col. 3: lines 22-42; col. 4: lines 37-45; col. 7: lines 17-39; col. 10: lines 8-24 – The camera can capture video of outside of the aircraft and a POI identifier can identify the POI (e.g., a lake, city). The fact that the camera can capture video of outside of the aircraft teaches that it is a live camera feed as the aircraft is passing POIs);
wherein the displaying comprises at least one of superimposing the camera feed data or replacing a graphic with the camera feed data (Fig. 7, col. 3: lines 22-42; col. 7: lines 17-27; col. 10: lines 8-24 – The graphical content (such as an identifier of a POI) can be superimposed/displayed by a transparent emissive display layer when the electrochromic layer is transparent. That is, a user can see a live feed data via the video of the outside form the camera while also seeing a superimposed POI identifier (e.g., “Denver” – Fig. 7).
Although Kathol makes it abundantly clear that the POIs (landmarks, etc.) are identified when the aircraft is flying over them (within proximity) (Fig. 7, col. 1: lines 6-9; col. 3: lines 22-42; col. 10: lines 8-24), Kathol doesn’t specifically teach wherein the flight data comprises a proximity to the POI, and wherein the determining whether to display the camera feed data is based on the proximity to the POI.
Seetharam discloses a multimedia information system that displays route information, which includes information about points of interest, wherein when a POI is within proximity along the route, information such as audio and/or video is executed so that the user can see detailed information about the POI (pars. 27, 32, 39, 41, 83).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to include the teachings of Seetharam into the system taught by Kathol above. This would have been obvious because both Kathol and Seetharam display POI information along a travel route, and Seetharam further teaches that providing more detailed information (promotion, product, advertisements information) about POIs, specific to the proximity of the route, will further enhance the user experience who are traveling along that route (pars. 1, 23).
Seetharam further teaches that the content provided to users traveling along the route can include real-time image data corresponding to the selected route or a POI, such as from a live camera feed (par. 58). Seetharam further teaches that location-based items can also be presented as an alternative to graphic depictions of landmarks, icons and other information representing certain POIs (par. 92). That is, graphics can be replaced with camera feed data.
Although Kathol does teach of an external brightness sensor to detect brightness outside of the aircraft, which would adjust settings for the electrochromic layer (which can serve as an electronically controlled window shade) (col. 5: lines 1-34; col. 6: lines 30-35), Kathol doesn’t specifically teach wherein the flight data comprises local time, and the automatic adjustment of the window level is based on the local time.
Berman discloses of an automatic shade control system that adjusts a window shade positioning based on a multitude of information, such as local time and brightness level of a local sensor, etc. (Abstract, par. 55).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to include the teachings of Berman’s shade control system into the system taught by Kathol above. This would have been obvious because both Kathol and Berman teach of mechanically adjusting a window shade based on an external brightness sensor, in which Berman associates that also with local time and sunrise/sunset information (par. 55). A person skilled in the art would have appreciated the benefit of setting Kathol’s window shade adjustments with local time information since aircrafts typically span through multiple time zones in which the brightness can differ depending on those local time zones.
With regard to claim 6, Kathol, Seetharam and Berman teach the cabin management control device of claim 1, and Berman further teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the window level is further based on a local sunrise time and a local sunset time (par. 55).
With regard to claim 7, Berman further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 6, wherein the automatic adjustment of the window level includes lowering the window level based on the local time being greater than the local sunset time (Par. 35, 55 – Berman teaches that controlling the window shade adjustments (which is based on solar radiation) can change periodically throughout the morning, a portion of the day and/or the week or other time frame. A person skilled in the art would have understood this to mean that local time adjustments would be greater than sunrise/sunset time adjustments).
With regard to claim 15, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to be mounted within the aircraft cabin (Fig. 7).
With regard to claim 16, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 15, wherein: the computing device is configured to be mounted proximate to a passenger seat (Fig. 7, col. 6: lines 48-56).
With regard to claim 17, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a mobile computing device (col. 9, lines 52-56).
With regard to claim 18, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 17, wherein the mobile computing device is wirelessly coupled to the aircraft network and the cabin controller (Fig. 1, col. 4: lines 27-42, col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 16 – wireless communication).
With regard to claim 19, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 17, wherein the mobile computing device is physically coupled to the aircraft network and the cabin controller (Fig. 1, col. 4:27-42, col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 16 – wired communication).
With regard to claim 20, Kathol further teaches the cabin management control device of claim 1, wherein: the aircraft cabin includes a passenger cabin; wherein a visible parameter of the GUI corresponds to at least one of the cabin lighting level, the window level, or a graphic capable of being displayed (Fig. 7, col.4, lines 4- 12; col. 5: lines 1-34; col. 7: lines 17-39; col. 8, lines 57-67; col. 10, lines 8-24).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathol, Seetharam and Berman et al., and further in view of Fagan et al. (2018/0281990).
With regard to claim 8, Kathol, Seetharam and Berman do not specifically teach wherein the automatic adjustment of the window level or the window level is further based on an altitude of the flight data.
Fagan teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the window level or the window level is further based on an altitude of the flight data (Fig. 34, par. 305 - “ The scheduling GUI 266 also may include an altitude record 274 that provides a visual output of the vertical position of the aircraft 36 during the flight.”; pars. 399-402 – the window shades are adjusted based on the input provided by the user, and the input can be the altitude data.; par. 429 – the altitude data can be used as an input control. For instance, “if the flight crew member would like for the movie to begin playing after the aircraft 36 reaches a particular altitude, the flight crew member may set this parameter via the altitude record.” Thus, if the display screen can be controlled based on the altitude data, the altitude data can be used to control the window level).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system taught by Kathol, Seetharam and Berman by incorporating the teaching of Fagan so that the system can adjust the window level based on an altitude of the flight data. This would have been obvious because it would allow the system to dynamically adjust the window levels based on the altitude or other input controls (Fagan, par. 87). Also, “the altitude record 274 may be provided with specific logic to prevent certain activities from occurring if those activities do not comply with applicable aviation guidelines” (Fagan, par. 305).
With regard to claim 9, Fagan teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the window level is further based on the altitude (See claim 8 above). Fagan further teaches that the system can be programmed to not play the media until the aircraft has reached a “suitable altitude” and complies with “applicable aviation guidelines.” (par. 305).
It would also have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to base the altitude being at least 30,000 feet. This would have been obvious because a person skilled in the art would have understood that suitable altitude and applicable aviation guidelines could be at least 30,000 feet since that is a typical altitude at which an aircraft stays at during most of the flight path.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathol, Seetharam and Berman et al., and further view of Seguin (2021/0188165).
With regard to claim 10, although Kathol teaches of an internal brightness sensor and the ability to control cabin brightness (col. 6, lines 38-47; col. 8: lines 57-67), Kathol does not explicitly teach wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level is based on the local time.
Seguin teaches an aircraft cabin control system wherein the cabin lighting is adjusted based on the time of the year, the time of day, the time zone in which the vehicle is travelling, among other possibilities (par. 75).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the cabin lighting level based on a local time which the aircraft is currently in, and modify the system taught by Kathol, Seetharam and Berman above to include the automatic cabin lighting system taught by Seguin. This would have been obvious because a person skilled in the art would have recognized that since Seguin clearly teaches that the cabin lighting can be based on a “time zone” the aircraft is travelling in, that would indeed include the local time. Further, since Kathol clearly taches that internal and external lighting brightness is an important characteristic to take into account, a person skilled in the art would have appreciated having an automatic cabin lighting system adjust the cabin lighting to accommodate these characteristics.
With regard to claim 11, Seguin teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level is further based on a local sunrise time and a local sunset time (par. 75 – Senguin clearly teaches that information indicative that the environment outside is dark may be derived or assumed based on information indicative the time of year, the time of day, the time zone in which the aircraft is travelling, among other possibilities. The “time zone” and the “time of day” clearly teaches of a local sunrise/sunset time. At the very least, a person skilled in the art would have considered that to be an obvious conclusion since sunrise and sunset are transition times between light and darkness.
With regard to claim 12, although Seguin teaches an aircraft cabin control system wherein the cabin lighting is adjusted based on the time of the year, the time of day, the time zone in which the vehicle is travelling, among other possibilities (par. 75), Seguin doesn’t specifically teach wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level includes lowering the cabin lighting level based on the local time being greater than the local sunset time.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the cabin lighting level based on a local time being greater than the local sunset time since Seguin clearly teaches that the information indicative of when it is “dark” can be among many different possibilities, including local time, time of year and even weather. A person skilled in the art would have recognized that sunset times can vary from day to day, and can be even harder to predict if there is a weather pattern on that day. A person skilled in the art would have understood that basing “darkness” on a local time would be a more consistent indicator.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kathol, Seetharam, Berman et al, Seguin, and in further view of Fagan et al. (2018/0281990).
With regard to claim 13, Kathol, Seetharam, Berman and Seguin teach the cabin management control device of claim 10. However, they do not specifically teach wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level or the cabin lighting level is further based on an altitude of the flight data.
Fagan teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level or the cabin lighting level is further based on an altitude of the flight data (Fig. 33, par. 305 – “ The scheduling GUI 266 also may include an altitude record 274 that provides a visual output of the vertical position of the aircraft 36 during the flight.”; pars. 395-397 – the cabin lighting can be adjusted based on receiving control inputs for cabin light intensity and/or color, and the control input can be an altitude of the flight data.; par. 429 – the altitude data can be used as an input control. For instance, “if the flight crew member would like for the movie to begin playing after the aircraft 36 reaches a particular altitude, the flight crew member may set this parameter via the altitude record.” Thus, if the display screen can be controlled based on the altitude data, the altitude data can be used to control the cabin lighting).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kathol, Seetharam, Berman and Seguin by incorporating the teaching of Fagan so that the system can adjust the cabin lighting based on an altitude of the flight data. This would have been obvious because it would allow the system to dynamically adjust the cabin lightning based on the altitude or other input controls (Fagan, par. 87). Also, “the altitude record 274 may be provided with specific logic to prevent certain activities from occurring if those activities do not comply with applicable aviation guidelines” (Fagan, par. 305).
With regard to claim 14, Fagan teaches wherein the automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level is further based on the altitude being at least 30,000 feet (see claim 13 reasonings). Fagan further teaches that the system can be programmed to not play the media until the aircraft has reached a “suitable altitude” and complies with “applicable aviation guidelines.” (par. 305).
It would also have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to base the altitude being at least 30,000 feet. This would have been obvious because a person skilled in the art would have understood that suitable altitude and applicable aviation guidelines could be at least 30,000 feet since that is a typical altitude in which an aircraft stays at during most of the flight path.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6-20 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.
With regard to the applicant’s argument concerning claim 10, the applicant argues that Seguin addresses cabin lighting control, not control of window level of the window shade. It is noted that claim 10 specifically states, “automatic adjustment of the cabin lighting level.” It does not refer to adjusting the window level of the window shade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM-3:00PM M-Th, every other Friday off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights