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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
The examiner received remarks and amendments to the claim set dated 01 July 2025 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 01 April 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “prior office action”, and the like).
The examiner reviewed the amendments and determined that while a “second display” and a “second graphical element” is not disclosed in a verbatim manner in the specification, the specification does disclose “one or more displays”, such as that found in paragraph [0089]. As such, the examiner does not consider this or any other new and amended claim language received at this time to be new matter.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections for “certain vicinity”, the examiner has reviewed the amended claim language and has determined that language “within an area surrounding” reasonably conveys to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) the metes and bounds. For purposes of examination, the examiner is not limiting the “area surrounding” to a certain distance.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, the examiner notes that subject matter contained in a claim that was previously determined to at least amount to significantly more than the judicial exception was incorporated into the independent claims. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding prior art rejections (35 U.S.C. 103), the examiner notes that arguments are moot due to amendments made to the claim set. The examiner reviewed the amendments and the arguments provided by the applicant on pages 8-9 of the remarks file, noting in particular that applicant asserts that the combination of previously-identified references fails to disclose the amended claim language. Additionally, applicant asserts that the combination of references would not have been obvious (see page 9 of the remarks “Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that a skilled artisan would not combine this cited art as proposed by the Office Action…”). The examiner respectfully disagrees with both of the aforementioned points made by the applicant. Regarding the first point, the examiner pointed to exact paragraphs in US 2023/0237917 A1 (Schuppenhauer et al., the primary art of note) wherein it is described that a flight path with corresponding buffer tube (flight routs, air tracks, etc. as disclosed) may be communicated between a plurality of air vehicles, including to display this information on the “other air vehicles”. The teachings of Ruelke (US 2024/0046800 A1, Ruelke et al.) were merely used to show that aircraft navigation markers on a digital map shared between entities are also removed when no longer necessary with direct teaching from the supporting reference. This is an obvious modification to the primary reference of note, as it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to remove clutter from a navigation system by removing graphical icons/elements when they are no longer in use. Thus, the examiner has not found the arguments persuasive and instead will present new grounds of rejection, necessitated by claim amendment, below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 01 July 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are pending. Claims 5 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are new but do not contain new matter. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 (all pending claims) are rejected for the reasons provided below.
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.
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 1-4, 9, 11-14, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuppenhauer et al. (US 2023/0237917 A1; filed 25 Jun 2021, hereinafter Schuppenhauer) in view of Ruelke et al. (US 2024/0046800 A1; filed 08 Aug 2022, hereinafter Ruelke).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 11 (apparatus), and 20 (apparatus):
Schuppenhauer discloses A computer-implemented method comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0001, 0045], Schuppenhauer discloses a computer implemented method) / A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, is configured to: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0132], Schuppenhauer discloses software components distributed in storage/database modules) / An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0132, 0134], Schuppenhauer discloses an apparatus comprising a processor and storage)
generating a three-dimensional (3D) protected zone around a flight path for an aerial vehicle associated with an emergency operations event based on emergency flight plan data for the aerial vehicle; (per claim 1) / generate a three-dimensional (3D) protected zone around a flight path for an aerial vehicle associated with an emergency operations event based on emergency flight plan data for the aerial vehicle; (per claims 11 and 20) (Paragraph [0054, 0100, 0106, 0120, 0161-0163] and Figure [4-9], Schuppenhauer discloses generating a tubular virtual boundary (three-dimensional zone) surrounding the flight path of the aircraft. Further, elements of the tubular virtual boundary are established based on conditions such as an emergency situation. Thus, the flight path may be associated with an emergency event and constitutes “emergency flight plan data”)
broadcasting the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to a different aerial vehicle within an area surrounding the aerial vehicle to cause a rendering of a graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via a display of the different aerial vehicle; and (per claim 1) / broadcast the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to a different aerial vehicle within an area surrounding the aerial vehicle to cause a rendering of a graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via a display of the different aerial vehicle; and (per claims 11 and 20) (Paragraph [0041, 0045, 0055, 0076-0077, 0096, 0106, 0121, 0136, 0152, 0174], Schuppenhauer discloses that the air vehicle is configured to communicate the flight route (the virtual boundary) and the flight route plan for the purpose of visualizing other flight routes associated with other air vehicles. The communication may be by broadcast unit. Further, Schuppenhauer discloses that the air vehicle may include a display to visualize flight routes of other air vehicles (the 3D protected zone is displayed on another air vehicle) including modifications made to the flight routes. As the system is described to be installed in more than the ownship (“…integrated in any of the air vehicles…”), the “other aircraft” may be either the ownship or the other aircraft, thus including a display in the “different aerial vehicle”)
in response to the aerial vehicle arriving at a designated location, [broadcasting a removal indicator for the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to the different aerial vehicle] to cause a modification to the rendering of the graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via the display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claim 1) / in response to the aerial vehicle arriving at a designated location, [broadcast a removal indicator for the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to the different aerial vehicle] to cause a modification to the rendering of the graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via the display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claims 11 and 20) (Paragraph [0041, 0045, 0055, 0076-0077, 0096, 0106, 0121, 0136, 0152, 0160, 0169, 0174, 0177], Schuppenhauer discloses that the flight route (including an alternate destination in case of unforeseen hazardous situations) ends at a destination position. Further, Schuppenhauer discloses that the air vehicle may include a display to visualize flight routes of other air vehicles (the 3D protected zone is displayed on another air vehicle) including modifications made to the flight routes. As the system is described to be installed in more than the ownship (“…integrated in any of the air vehicles…”), the “other aircraft” may be either the ownship or the other aircraft, thus including a display in the “different aerial vehicle”)
Schuppenhauer does not explicitly disclose that the flight route tubular boundary is removed upon arrival at a destination.
However, Ruelke, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches in response to the aerial vehicle arriving at a designated location, broadcasting a removal indicator for the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to the different aerial vehicle (per claim 1) / in response to the aerial vehicle arriving at a designated location, broadcast a removal indicator for the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data to the different aerial vehicle (per claims 11 and 20) (Paragraph [0129-0131], Ruelke teaches that once the manned aircraft completes its route through the temporary exclusion zone (analogous to a 3D protected zone as it is a tube (three dimensional) containing a flight route, which may reasonably be an emergency flight route), it is communicated that the vehicle has made its way through the exclusion zone to a destination (the other side of the zone) and the temporary exclusion zone is eliminated)
Schuppenhauer and Ruelke are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the flight route virtual boundary disclosure of Schuppenhauer with the explicit teaching that the virtual boundary is eliminated when the aircraft arrives at its destination, as one would have been motivated to control the congestion of traffic control elements (Ruelke, Paragraph [0014 and 0131]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that flight paths, and boundaries representing 3D space around them, are not permanent fixtures and should be discarded when they are no longer useful to prevent clutter in a navigation system. Ruelke is provided as a reference that teaches this in an analogous context.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 21:
Schuppenhauer further discloses wherein broadcasting the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data comprises broadcasting the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via wireless communication. (per claim 2) / wherein the computer program code is further configured to: broadcast the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via wireless communication. (per claim 12) / wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: broadcast the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via wireless communication. (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0034, 0076, 0089, 0181], Schuppenhauer discloses that details of the navigation (including flight plan and route) are communicated wirelessly)
Regarding claims 3, 13, and 22:
Schuppenhauer further discloses wherein broadcasting the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data comprises broadcasting the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via satellite communication. (per claim 3) / wherein the computer program code is further configured to: broadcast the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via satellite communication. (per claim 13) / wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to: broadcast the 3D protected zone and the emergency flight plan data via satellite communication. (per claim 22) (Paragraph [0076, 0089, 0134, 0181], Schuppenhauer discloses communication by satellite)
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Schuppenhauer further discloses wherein the emergency flight plan data comprises an emergency flight path of the aerial vehicle and an emergency destination location of the aerial vehicle. (per claim 4) / wherein the emergency flight plan data comprises an emergency flight path of the aerial vehicle and an emergency destination location of the aerial vehicle. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0160, 0169, 0177], Schuppenhauer discloses that the plan of movement (including in contingency, such as emergency) includes a path and a destination)
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
Schuppenhauer further discloses wherein the graphical element is a first graphical element and the display is a first display, and the computer implemented method further comprising: causing rendering of a second graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via a second display of a remote operations platform. (per claim 9) / wherein the graphical element is a first graphical element, the display is a first display, and the computer program code is further configured to: cause rendering of a second graphical element associated with the 3D protected zone via a second display of a remote operations platform. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0042, 0096, 0121], The examiner notes that the “first” display was discussed in the independent claims. Schuppenhauer further discloses that the ground station (a remote operations platform) may include a display to visualize flight routes of other air vehicles (the 3D protected zone is displayed on another air vehicle))
Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schuppenhauer in view of Ruelke in further view of Chen et al. (US 2003/0193410 A1; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 6 and 16:
Schuppenhauer is silent regarding primary flight displays.
However, Chen, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the display is a primary flight display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claims 6 and 16) (Paragraph [0031], Chen discloses that display of flight path information is on a primary flight display)
Schuppenhauer and Chen are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the display of flight information disclosed by Schuppenhauer to include that of a primary flight display as taught by Chen, as the use of a primary flight display as a specific type of display is merely a design choice. Schuppenhauer discloses that a generic user interface is provided to allow a pilot the ability to visualize flight route information (Schuppenhauer, Paragraph [0174]). A primary flight display is merely a more specific type of display made available to a pilot and is known (by the teachings of Chen) to include display of flight plan information for providing situational awareness to the pilot (Chen, Paragraph [0001]). Merely presenting the information of Schuppenhauer on a certain type of display, also known in the art at the time of effective filing, to present information to a pilot is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Schuppenhauer.
Regarding claims 7 and 17:
Schuppenhauer is silent regarding vertical situation displays.
However, Chen, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the display is a vertical situation display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claims 7 and 17) (Paragraph [0031], Chen discloses that display of flight path information is on a vertical situation display)
Schuppenhauer and Chen are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the display of flight information disclosed by Schuppenhauer to include that of a vertical situation display as taught by Chen, as the use of a vertical situation display as a specific type of display is merely a design choice. Schuppenhauer discloses that a generic user interface is provided to allow a pilot the ability to visualize flight route information (Schuppenhauer, Paragraph [0174]). A vertical situation display is merely a more specific type of display made available to a pilot and is known (by the teachings of Chen) to include display of flight plan information for providing situational awareness to the pilot (Chen, Paragraph [0001]). Merely presenting the information of Schuppenhauer on a certain type of display, also known in the art at the time of effective filing, to present information to a pilot is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Schuppenhauer.
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
Schuppenhauer and Ruelke discuss the 3D protected zone as taught in the parent claim, but Schuppenhauer is silent regarding primary flight displays and vertical situation displays.
However, Chen, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches wherein the display comprises a primary flight display and a vertical situation display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claim 8) / wherein the display comprises a primary flight display and a vertical situation display of the different aerial vehicle. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0031] and Figure [4], Chen discloses that display of flight path information is on a vertical situation display and primary flight display)
Schuppenhauer and Chen are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the display of flight information disclosed by Schuppenhauer to include that of display on a primary flight display and a vertical situation display as taught by Chen, as the use of a primary flight display and a vertical situation display as specific types of display is merely a design choice. Schuppenhauer discloses that a generic user interface is provided to allow a pilot the ability to visualize flight route information (Schuppenhauer, Paragraph [0174]). A primary flight display and vertical situation display are merely more specific types of display made available to a pilot and they are known (by the teachings of Chen) to include display of flight plan information for providing situational awareness to the pilot (Chen, Paragraph [0001]). Merely presenting the information of Schuppenhauer on a certain type of display, also known in the art at the time of effective filing, to present information to a pilot is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Schuppenhauer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuppenhauer in view of Ruelke in further view of Balasubramanian et al. (US 2020/0251002 A1; published 06 Aug 2020, hereinafter Balasubramanian).
Regarding claim 10:
Schuppenhauer and Ruelke discuss the 3D protected zone as shown in the parent claim.
Schuppenhauer does not explicitly disclose that an acceptance indicator is presented to a pilot.
However, Balasubramanian, in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation, teaches further comprising: receiving, from the different aerial vehicle, an acceptance indicator for the 3D protected zone in response to a user action with respect to an interactive graphical element rendered via the display of the different aerial vehicle. (Paragraph [0066-0068], Balasubramanian teaches that a prompt to seek pilot approval to modify the flight path to avoid conflict with a host aircraft from a neighbor/second aircraft is made)
Schuppenhauer and Balasubramanian are in a similar field of endeavor of aircraft navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Schuppenhauer to include pilot confirmation as taught by Balasubramanian in the interest of allowing user override or general input to an otherwise automatic process (Balasubramanian, Paragraph [0068]).
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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights