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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the instant Response to Office Action of 12/29/2025, the asserted disqualification of the Rawdon reference based on common ownership or assignment or inventorship is deemed accepted such that the cited Rawdon reference is no longer applicable to rejection, and the instant rejection based thereon overcome.
However, as stated in the previous rejection, the aircraft form of blended wing body is notoriously known since the 1950s, and to buttress this understanding of the art, Humphries was cited as showing the blended wing body fuselage as well known. Thus, Rawdon is replaced with Humphries in the rejecting claims mappings below.
Finally, in regard to the newly added dependent claims 23-28, claims 23 and 26 do not implicate a playback rate, and are rejected. See claims mapping below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24, 25, 27 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauer (EP 3 715 251, from the IDS of 9/6/2023) in view of Humphries (US 2004/0217978).
Regarding claim 1, Brauer discloses an apparatus for virtually displaying an external visual environment of an aircraft, (Abstract, Figure 14, system for displaying a virtual eternal view from the aircraft) the apparatus comprising: an input device, wherein the input device is configured to receive external aircraft data of an aircraft; (Figure 14, Switch 1310 or input to system of computing device 1402 receives eternal aircraft video) at least a processor; (Figure 14, processor 1404) and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, (Figure 14, memory 1406 coupled to processor 1404) wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the processor (paragraph 0122, memory includes program instructions for effecting embodiments) to: obtain the external aircraft data from the input device (paragraph 0007/0008, Figure 17, cameras obtain external aircraft images, and transfer to switch 1310 or computing device 1402 system, which is input for processing at system) determine a location of one or more passengers; (paragraph 0007/0008, relative location in plane for passengers determined) generate a field of view as a function of the external aircraft data and the location of the one or more passengers; (paragraph 0008 and 0028, shown Figure 6, field of views for virtual windows 600 generated base on position of passenger and camera images of the external view portion that passenger would have) and transmit the field of view to a display device (paragraph 0078, shown Figure 6, images displayed on virtual windows 600) located on an interior wall of the aircraft, wherein the interior wall of the aircraft is opposite the leading edge of the aircraft. (identically shown Figure 2)
Brauer fails to identically disclose wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body, and wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between wings and a main body of the blended wing body along a leading edge of the wings of the blended wing body.
However, Humphries teaches wherein the aircraft comprises a blended wing body, and wherein the blended wing body has no clear demarcation between wings and a main body of the blended wing body along a leading edge of the wings of the blended wing body. (paragraph 0022, airplane fuselage is of blended wing body type)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that an airplane fuselage may be of the blended wing variety because such a fuselage form has been well known since the 1950s, and oft seen in the skies above aircraft proving grounds by the general public, and as such is notorious known and in the public domain. Further Humphries teaches that interior imagery is of particular importance to passengers of blended wing body to prevent motion sickness in the cabin interior. (paragraph 0026) And Brauer discloses an interior enclosed aircraft portion, thus empirically implicating the same. (paragraph 0061)
Regarding claim 3, Brauer discloses wherein the external aircraft data comprises virtually generated data of an outside of the aircraft. (paragraph 0023 with paragraph 0104, image of outside of aircraft generated for virtual window from one or more images-see also paragraph 0018)
Regarding claim 4, Brauer discloses wherein determining the location of one or more passengers comprises: locating a passenger seat; (paragraph 0081, passenger seat located) locating the display device; (Shown Figure 6, specific display device located relative to passenger) and determining the location of the one or more passengers as a function of the location of the passenger seat and the location of the display device. (paragraphs 0025 and 0031 in conjunction with Figure 6, relative location of passenger determined relative to display device and seat)
Regarding claim 7, Brauer discloses the memory further containing instructions configuring the processor to transmit a plurality of rest frames to the display device, the plurality of rest frames comprising virtually stationary components. (paragraph 0005, common landscape may be displayed on virtual windows, and the landscape is virtually stationary)
Regarding claim 8, Brauer discloses wherein the display device is located on a side of a fuselage of the aircraft. (paragraphs 0019/0021, virtual windows may be used in a plane to emulate windows, for example at blocked windows 40/42 on aircraft fuselage)
Regarding claim 23, Brauer discloses wherein generating the field of view comprises generating a virtual field of view of an external surrounding of the aircraft. (paragraphs 0007/0008, virtual view of fuselage exterior displayed)
Claims 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 26 are method claims reciting method features similar to those features recited in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 23, respectively, and are thus rendered obvious by Brauer in view of Humphries for reasons similar to claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 23, respectively.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauer in view of Humphries, in yet further view of Sizelove (US 2017/0286037).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Brauer and Humphries, namely Humphries teaches generating the field of view comprises generating the field of view as a function of the aircraft orientation data. (Abstract, aircraft orientation used to generate images for view)
Brauer fails to identically disclose wherein the external aircraft data comprises aircraft orientation data.
However, Sizelove teaches wherein the external aircraft data comprises aircraft orientation data. (paragraph 0053, location unit determines position, altitude and heading of the aircraft, which is orientation, for displaying correct virtual view)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that aircraft data includes orientation data because Sizelove teaches to use aircraft orientation data to output correct virtual views of terrain oriented on the aircraft display correctly for viewing. (paragraph 0053)
Claim 12 is a method claim reciting method features similar to those features recited in claim 2, and are thus rendered obvious by Brauer and Humphries in view of Sizelove for reasons similar to claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauer in view of Humphries, in yet further view of Yoon (US 2022/0346277).
Regarding claim 5, Brauer discloses wherein generating the field of view as a function of the external aircraft data and the location of the one or more passengers comprises: receiving eye-tracking data of the one or more passengers; (paragraph 0081, sensor detects eye location) determining a passenger perspective view of the one or more passengers as a function of the eye-tracking data and the location of the one or more passengers; (shown Figure 6, paragraph 0081, eye and passenger location used to determine passenger view) and generating the field of view as a function of the external aircraft data and the passenger perspective view. (paragraph 0079, shown Figure 6, field of view displayed on virtual window displays 600)
Brauer fails to disclose wherein the eye-tracking data comprises data tracking movement of one or more passengers' pupils, and wherein receiving the eye-tracking data comprises determining 3D coordinates using two or more cameras with known locations.
However, Yoon teaches wherein the eye-tracking data comprises data tracking movement of one or more passengers' pupils, and wherein receiving the eye-tracking data comprises determining 3D coordinates using two or more cameras with known locations. (paragraph 0140, stereo camera used to track eye movement via pupils)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a stereo camera to track pupils to track eye movement because such was a well known mechanism for eye tracking well before the effective filing date of the instant application, and would be well known to one of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application. (paragraph 0140)
Claim 15 is a method claim reciting method features similar to those features recited in claim 5, and is thus rendered obvious by Brauer and Humphries in view of Yoon for reasons similar to claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauer in view of Humphries, in yet further view of He (US 8,908,100).
Regarding claim 6, Brauer fails to disclose the recited; however, He teaches wherein the display device displays the field of view at a minimum of 60 frames per second. (column 1, lines 40-50, display outputs images at 60 fps)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to output images to a display at 60 fps, because a 60 fps output to a display was a well known standard for video display well before the effective filing date of the instant application, and would be well known to one of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application. (column 1, lines 40-50)
Claim 16 is a method claim reciting method features similar to those features recited in claim 6, and is thus rendered obvious by Brauer and Humphries in view of He for reasons similar to claim 6.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brauer in view of Humphries, in yet further view of Nister (US 2022/0301186).
Regarding claim 21, Brauer fails to disclose the recited; however, Nister teaches using an optical flow method, wherein the optical flow method comprises: tracking a movement of at least an object within a video of a surrounding environment of the aircraft; and matching a relative speed of the at least an object in the video of the surrounding environment of the aircraft to a speed of the aircraft. (paragraphs 0019/0020, optical flow monitoring of object in the context of aircraft)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to output images to use optical flow for object monitoring, because optical flow was known for object tracking well before the effective filing date of the instant application, and would be well known to one of skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application. (paragraphs 0019/0020)
Claim 22 is a method claim reciting method features similar to those features recited in claim 21, and is thus rendered obvious by Brauer and Humphries in view of Nister for reasons similar to claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kodati (US 2022/0324575) implicates virtual displays.
Tillotson (US 2020/0351451) implicates virtual displays.
Nasi (US 2019/0080514) implicates virtual displays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
January 18, 2026