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 .
Claims in Consideration
Claims 5,6, 18, 19, are canceled.
Claims 20-23, are new.
Claims 1-4, 7-17, and 19-23, are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/2/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) under 35 USC 102, to ZM, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of ZM in view of Fisher, wherein Fisher has been added to cure the deficiencies of ZM.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 2: the applicant alleges that ZM fails to teach preloaded on the device.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In par. 19:5-14, ZM acknowledges that computer’s store the information that is then processed. This is preloaded.
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-4, 7, 9-17, 20-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zammit-Mangion et al. (US 9710145 B2, published: 7/18/2017, herein known as ZM), in view of Fisher et al. (US 20140343752 A1, published: 11/20/2014).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended): ZM teaches a avionics display device (it is understood that various positioning methods and mechanisms can be used to allow the Touch Screen Display Unit (201) or the Device (216) to be placed at positions and angles that are advantageous for use by the pilot (200). Methods and mechanisms may also include means to stow away or remove the Device (216) when required. An example of a potential mechanism is one similar to that used in table seats in the aircraft cabin area where no seat is available in front to accommodate a table, or the seat in front is too far away as is often the case with emergency exit rows [ZM, 9:21-31]), comprising:
a communications interface (213 [ZM, FIG. 1]) couplable to a source graphics generator (the operations be implemented using existing hardware in existing electronic systems (e.g., display drivers [ZM, 6:21-23]; Examiner's Note: wherein FIG. 1 shows all components being connected), the source graphics generator configured to provide image data to the avionics display device (the Device (216) is also configured to display data that is currently displayed on aircraft display systems [ZM, 10:1-3]), the image data corresponding to an avionics display of an aircraft (the Device (216) is also configured to display data that is currently displayed on aircraft display systems in a format that either replicates or presents similar formats presently used in aircraft displays [ZM, 10:1-4]), the avionics display comprising one or more display windows (pilots can call up a Primary Flight Display (PFD) window, a Navigational Display (ND) window and various other aircraft system windows [ZM, 10:5-7]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated in FIGs. 7, 8, 10, 11);
window context data defining, for each display window of the avionics display, at least one of a size, a purpose, or a function of the display window (standard functions (such as, but not limited to, zooming and panning) and typical gesture inputs may be included to facilitate use by the pilot (200) [ZM, 10:5-13]);
wherein the window context data is at least one of preloaded to the avionics display device or received from the source graphics generator (the program may be stored on a computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the storage medium, or computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program of any of the above mentioned embodiments and/or to perform the method of any of the above mentioned embodiments [ZM, 19:5-14]);
a touch-sensitive display surface configured for presentation of the avionics display based on the image data, the touch-sensitive display surface including one or more touch sensors configured to detect one or more contact points of the display surface when engaged by a user (the touch screen may provide touch feedback to allow the pilot to better recognise that his or her intended action has been detected by the Device (216) [ZM, 10:29-32]; [ZM, 7:33-49]); and
a touch controller including display logic operatively coupled to the touch sensors and to the communications interface, the touch controller configured to: receive the one or more detected contact points from the touch sensors (Fig. 2 gives a high-level overview of the process that may be followed in the present example embodiment whenever the pilot (200) interacts with the Device (216), such as by using a touch gesture [ZM, 10:18-21]);
identify at least one potential gesture based on the detected contact points and the window context data, the at least one potential gesture corresponding to at least one display window of the one or more display windows (the Device (216) detects and interprets the user interaction. The Device (216) may provide graphical, aural, haptic and/or tactile feedback [ZM, 10:23-27]); and
provide the one or more detected contact points and the at least one potential gesture to the source graphics generator via the communications interface (the Device (216) then transmits the corresponding data and/or commands (301) to the Aircraft Avionics Systems (214) via the datalink connection (213) [ZM, 10:33-36]).
ZM does not teach a remote avionics display device; the source graphics generator configured to provide image data to the remote avionics display device, the image data corresponding to an avionics display of an aircraft; wherein the data is at least one of preloaded to the remote avionics display device; and a touch controller including remote display logic operatively coupled to the touch sensors and to the communications interface.
However, Fisher teaches a remote avionics display device; the source graphics generator configured to provide image data to the remote avionics display device, the image data corresponding to an avionics display of an aircraft; wherein the data is at least one of preloaded to the remote avionics display device (with reference to FIGS. 7 & 8, the aircraft system, including both the aircraft and the remote-control station 201, is provided with a system control system 301 configured for a user to remotely control the flight of the aircraft using the remote-control station [Fisher, 0051]); and a touch controller including remote display logic operatively coupled to the touch sensors and to the communications interface (the auto-land button may be accessible to the remote-control station user as a physical button (as depicted), or an-onscreen button (such as one that can be pressed/activated using a mouse or a finger on a touchscreen) [Fisher, 0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the avionics touch interface invention of ZM to include the remote control feature of Fisher.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because more and more technology can be applied to remote control various devices. To overcome an emergency when a pilot might become incapacitated, it would be helpful to include means for remote piloting an aircraft.
Claim 15, having similar deficiencies of claim 1, is likewise rejected.
Claim 2. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein: the window context data corresponds to at least one of a make or a model of the aircraft (it is also understood that the menu structure may reflect the organisation of the aircraft and may be therefore specific to the particular aircraft type [ZM, 11:1-3]).
Claim 3. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches further comprising: a memory coupled to the touch controller, the memory configured for storage of the window context data ([ZM, FIG. 1]; Examiner's Note: as illustrated).
Claim 4. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein the remote display logic is configured to infer or assign at least one touch data structure (TDS) corresponding to the one or more display windows based on the window context data, each TDS comprising one or more gestures associated with the corresponding display window (pilots can call up a Primary Flight Display (PFD) window, a Navigational Display (ND) window and various other aircraft system windows. It is understood, however, that variations of the configurations and windows can be used. It is also understood that the graphical layout may be varied to follow trends in computer displays. Furthermore, it is also understood that standard functions (such as, but not limited to, zooming and panning) and typical gesture inputs may be included to facilitate use by the pilot (200) [ZM, 10:5-13]).
Claim 7. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 5. ZM further teaches wherein the window context data includes one or more touch data structures (TDS) associated with the one or more display windows; wherein the touch controller is configured to identify at least one potential gesture based on the detected contact points, the window context data, and the one or more TDS (the touch screen may provide touch feedback to allow the pilot to better recognise that his or her intended action has been detected by the Device (216) [ZM, 10:29-32]. The Device (216) then transmits the corresponding data and/or commands (301) to the Aircraft Avionics Systems (214) via the datalink connection (213) [ZM, 10:33-36]; [ZM, 7:33-49]).
Claim 9: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein the at least one potential gesture is associated with two or more detected contact points (Gestures activating input functions may also be varied. For example, it is possible to replace a double tap gesture for a button with a single tap or swipe, a combination of both or other [ZM, 7:39-42]).
Claim 10. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein: the at least one potential gesture is associated with at least one redefinition of the one or more display windows; and the touch controller is configured to provide to the source graphics generator revised window context data corresponding to the at least one redefinition (the Device (216) is also configured to display data that is currently displayed on aircraft display systems in a format that either replicates or presents similar formats presently used in aircraft displays [ZM, 10: 1-4]).
Claim 11. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 10. ZM further teaches wherein the at least one redefinition is associated with one or more of: an expansion of at least one redefined display window; or a contraction of at least one redefined display window (open the ND window, select a display mode (such as PLAN mode) and zoom in onto a specific area on a displayed map [ZM, 10:55-57]).
Claim 12. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein the remote avionics display device includes at least one of a tablet, a smartphone, or an electronic flight bag (EFB) (personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones, tablet personal computers (PCs) [ZM, 6:24-25]).
Claim 13. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein: the avionics display and the source graphics generator correspond to at least one cockpit-based flight display of the aircraft; and the remote avionics display device is configured for mirroring the flight display (device (216) is also configured to display data that is currently displayed on aircraft display systems in a format that either replicates or presents similar formats presently used in aircraft displays [ZM, 10:1-4]).
Claim 14: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein the communications interface is a wireless interface associated with at least one wireless protocol (information can be exchanged between the Device (216) and the Aircraft Avionics Systems (214) via a datalink connection (213), which may be wired or wireless [ZM, 8:22-25]).
Claim 16. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the method of Claim 15. ZM further teaches wherein identifying, via a touch controller of the remote avionics display device, at least one potential gesture based on the at least one detected contact point and the window context data includes: identifying, via a touch controller of the remote avionics display device, at least one potential gesture based on the at least one detected contact point, the window context data, and one or more touch data structures (TDS), each TDS comprising one or more potential gestures associated with the one or more display windows (pilots can call up a Primary Flight Display (PFD) window, a Navigational Display (ND) window and various other aircraft system windows. It is understood, however, that variations of the configurations and windows can be used. It is also understood that the graphical layout may be varied to follow trends in computer displays [ZM, 10:5-10]. The touch screen may provide touch feedback to allow the pilot to better recognise that his or her intended action has been detected by the Device (216) [ZM, 10:29-32]; [ZM, 7:33-49]. Fig. 2 gives a high-level overview of the process that may be followed in the present example embodiment whenever the pilot (200) interacts with the Device (216), such as by using a touch gesture [ZM, 10:18-21]).
Claim 17. (Currently Amended): The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the method of Claim 16. ZM further teaches wherein identifying, via a touch controller of the remote avionics display device, at least one potential gesture based on the at least one detected contact point, the window context data, and one or more touch data structures (TDS), each TDS comprising one or more potential gestures associated with the one or more display windows includes: identifying the at least one potential gesture based on the window context data including at least one touch data structure (TDS) (pilots can call up a Primary Flight Display (PFD) window, a Navigational Display (ND) window and various other aircraft system windows. It is understood, however, that variations of the configurations and windows can be used. It is also understood that the graphical layout may be varied to follow trends in computer displays. Furthermore, it is also understood that standard functions (such as, but not limited to, zooming and panning) and typical gesture inputs may be included to facilitate use by the pilot (200) [ZM, 10:5-13]).
Claim 21, having similar deficiencies of claim 17, is likewise rejected.
Claim 20: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. ZM further teaches wherein the preloaded window context data is hard coded to the remote display logic (the program may be stored on a computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the storage medium, or computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program of any of the above mentioned embodiments and/or to perform the method of any of the above mentioned embodiments [ZM, 19:5-14]).
Claim 22: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the method of Claim 15. ZM further teaches wherein providing the window context data includes: storing the window context data to a memory of the remote avionics display device (the program may be stored on a computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the storage medium, or computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program of any of the above mentioned embodiments and/or to perform the method of any of the above mentioned embodiments [ZM, 19:5-14]).
Claim 23: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the method of Claim 15. ZM further teaches wherein providing the window context data includes: hard-coding the window context data to remote display logic of the remote avionics display device (the program may be stored on a computer readable medium and is adapted to perform any one of the aforementioned methods when run on a computer device (a device including a processor). Thus, the storage medium, or computer readable medium, is adapted to store information and is adapted to interact with a data processing facility or computer device to execute the program of any of the above mentioned embodiments and/or to perform the method of any of the above mentioned embodiments [ZM, 19:5-14]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zammit-Mangion et al. (US 9710145 B2, published: 7/18/2017, herein known as ZM), in view of McCusker et al. (US 10235890 B1, published: 3/19/2019).
Claim 8: The combination of ZM and Fisher, teaches the remote avionics display device of Claim 1. The combination of ZM and Fisher, does not teach wherein the window context data comprises: a count of the one or more display windows; and one or more bounds corresponding to each display window.
However, McCusker teaches wherein the window context data comprises: a count of the one or more display windows; and one or more bounds corresponding to each display window (as shown in FIG. 4, a window 306 including flight data and/or an electronic map may be resizable by contacting multiple points (e.g., points 308A and 308B) of the window 306 and bringing the contacted points closer together or pulling them further apart. When a multi-touch gesture to resize the window 306 is performed at the mobile device 224, the controller 214 at the aircraft server 212 (or the controller 206 at the aircraft display system 202) is configured to receive signals associated with the multi-touch gesture from the mobile device 222 and is further configured to update the graphical user interface 300 (e.g., by resizing and/or moving the window 306) at the display 224 of the mobile device 222 and the display 204 of the aircraft display system 202 based upon the multi-touch gesture. In general, windows, icons, tabs, and the like may be resized and/or repositioned (e.g., by holding and dragging) via the display 224 or any other input device of the mobile device 222, whereby the graphical user interface 300 at both devices is updated in response [McCusker, FIG. 4, 9:38-56]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the avionics touch interface invention of the combination of ZM and Fisher, to include the windows bounds feature of McCusker.
One would have been motivated to make this modification because there is a need for systems and methods that can be integrated with older flight decks to enhance the interface capabilities of an aircraft display system [McCusker, Background par.1].
Conclusion
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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM-4PM MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached on (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights