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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “a seat icon” twice. It is unclear whether this refers to the seat icon selected by the user in claim 4 or to another seat icon. For examination purposes, the examiner will assume that the applicant intends to refer to the same seat icon selected in claim 4, and that “a seat icon” should be replaced with “the seat icon”.
Claims 6 and 9-10 all refer to “a seat icon,” which is unclear for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 5 and which will be interpreted the same way for examination purposes.
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, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20070255489 A1) in view of Fenton (US 20140367545 A1) and Sink (US 20140257879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses an aircraft weight and balance system (Abstract: “A method, system and computer program product for determining an estimate of the weight and balance of an aircraft”) comprising: a controller having a memory for storing software and a processor for executing instructions of the software (Fig. 2, processor 201 and RAM 206). Jenson also discloses that the controller is configured to automatically determine updated weight and center-of-gravity estimates of the aircraft based on the different locations of objects (Abstract: the program estimates weight and balance “automatically in advance and up to the point of take-off.” Column 3, line 65 – Column 4, line 1: “Weight and balance system 101 calculates an estimate of the weight and balance of an aircraft based on information received from…a reservation system 103 [and] a bag loader 104.” Column 4, lines 52-65: the reservation system 103 contains information about count of passengers in different aircraft zones. Column 5, lines 4 – 16: the bag loader 104 contains information about number and classification of bags in different zones in the cargo area of an aircraft.). Jensen teaches that weight and balance estimates are made for safety when making flight plans prior to take-off (Column 1, lines 26-28).
Jensen does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to automatically determine an updated weight and center-of-gravity of the aircraft based on the different locations of seats.
Fenton teaches that airplanes may use rails to secure seats and cargo (¶2: "Cars, trucks, vans, airplanes, para-transit vehicles, buses, taxicabs, mobility cars, accessible sport-utility vehicles (SUV), and the like, have been adapted to include track systems that accommodate various types of equipment, cargo, and seating arrangements"; from context it is clear that these track systems are rails which secure cargo and seats). This suggests that seat locations may be adjusted along a track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fenton with the invention of Jensen by configuring the controller to automatically determine an updated weight and center-of-gravity of the aircraft based on the different locations of seats. Doing so would enable the software to account for various seating arrangements when performing weight and balance estimates.
Jensen in view of Fenton does not does not explicitly disclose a user interface communicatively coupled with the controller, the user interface comprising a configuration page that displays an interior layout of an aircraft, the interior layout having a plurality of seat icons corresponding to a plurality of seats onboard the aircraft, wherein the user interface is configured to enable a user to move each of the seat icons to different locations within the interior layout; and that the controller is configured to automatically determine an updated weight and center-of-gravity of the aircraft based on the different locations of the seat icons.
Sink teaches a user interface comprising a page that displays an interior layout of an aircraft, the interior layout having a plurality of seat icons corresponding to a plurality of seats onboard the aircraft (Fig. 2). The interface facilitates passenger location planning (for example in Fig. 2 available and unavailable seats are visually indicated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sink with the teachings of Jensen in view of Fenton by providing a user interface communicatively coupled with the controller, the user interface comprising a configuration page that displays an interior layout of an aircraft, the interior layout having a plurality of seat icons corresponding to a plurality of seats onboard the aircraft. Doing so would enable one visualize passenger and cargo distributions when planning weight and balance of an aircraft.
Furthermore, noting that one can adjust seats for different arrangements, it would have been obvious to enable a user to move each of the seat icons to different locations within the interior layout; and to configure the controller to automatically determine an updated weight and center-of-gravity of the aircraft based on the different locations of the seat icons. Doing so would enable one to obtain automatic weight and distribution estimates while planning different seating arrangements.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites a method of using the system of claim 1 and displaying the updated aircraft weight and center-of-gravity on the user interface. These limitations would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites a method of using the system of claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claims 2, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20070255489 A1) in view of Fenton (US 20140367545 A1) and Sink (US 20140257879 A1), and further in view of Nurmi (US 20090276701 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Jensen discloses that the aircraft may have different cargo loading zones (Column 5, lines 4 – 16: the bag loader 104 contains information about number and classification of bags in different zones in the cargo area of an aircraft).
Nurmi discloses a drag-and-drop method where items on a display can be moved around and placed where a user desires (See Figs. 5A-5B).
As described in the rejection of claim 1, it would be useful to use a GUI for planning distributions of cargo, and for the software to automatically update an estimate of weight and balance. A drag-and-drop method with icons representing cargo would facilitate easy planning of cargo distributions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jensen and Nurmi with the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink by causing the interior layout to display a plurality of cargo icons and to configure the user interface to enable the user to move each of the cargo icons to different cargo-loading zones within the interior layout; and to configure the controller to automatically determine an updated weight and center-of-gravity of the aircraft based on the different locations of the cargo icons.
Regarding claim 12, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Nurmi teaches the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Nurmi to provide an off-aircraft zone adjacent to the interior layout, wherein the off-aircraft zone provides a temporary location for storing seat and cargo icons while rearranging the interior layout. Doing so would enable one to avoid over-cluttering the airplane interior layout with icons while planning item locations.
Regarding claim 13, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink teaches the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, Fenton teaches that airplanes may use rails to secure seats and cargo (see ¶2 and rejection of claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink to display a plurality of rail icons longitudinally along the interior layout, wherein the seat icons and the cargo icons are moveable along the rail icons, and rail icons correspond with rails mounted to a floor of the aircraft upon which seat and cargo-loading zones are secured. Doing so would enable a user to make a plan for an airplane that uses rails to secure seats and cargo.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites a method of using the system of claim 2 and displaying the updated aircraft weight and center-of-gravity on the user interface. These limitations would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20070255489 A1) in view of Fenton (US 20140367545 A1) and Sink (US 20140257879 A1), and further in view of Wuggetzer (US 20150069181 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3.
Wuggetzer teaches that an aircraft may have a two-person bench seat (Fig. 4, bench seat 115 ¶66: the bench seats may be for two people).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wuggetzer with the invention of Jensen in view of Sink by causing the seat icons to comprise at least one individual seat icon representing a seat configured for seating an individual and at least one bench seat icon representing a bench seat configured for seating two individuals. An aircraft may have individual seats and two-person bench seats, therefore having icons for both would reflect both options when planning an aircraft’s interior layout.
Claims 4-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20070255489 A1) in view of Fenton (US 20140367545 A1) and Sink (US 20140257879 A1), and further in view of Tattenbaum (US 20130159030 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Tattenbaum teaches a layout of an interior theater where a seat may be selected (Fig. 4B). When a seat is selected, a window opens displaying information about the selected seats (Fig. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tattenbaum with the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink by configuring each of the seat icons as a selectable button for selecting by a user, and upon selection of a seat icon by the user, configuring a move item window to open displaying information about a selected seat. Doing so would be useful for providing a user with information about a particular seat.
Regarding claim 5, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum to cause the move item window to comprise a move forward icon configured to enable the user to move the seat icon forwards on the interior layout, and a move aft icon configured to enable the user to move the seat icon aft on the interior layout. Doing so would enable a user to incrementally shift a selected seat forward or aft.
Regarding claim 6, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 4. Tattenbaum further discloses that the window includes information about the position of the selected seats (Fig. 4B: “Row F, Seats 6 – 7”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tattenbaum with the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum by causing the move item window to comprise a seat position indicator that displays a seat position in the aircraft corresponding to the seat icon position in the interior layout. Doing so would communicate to a user the actual location on the aircraft of the seat as represented by the seat icon.
Regarding claim 7, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum to cause the move item window to comprise a seat center-of-gravity indicator that displays a center-of-gravity position of the seat corresponding to a position of the seat icon in the interior layout. Since the center of gravity of a collection of objects is a weighted sum of those objects’ centers of gravity, displaying the seat center-of-gravity would be useful to a user planning the distribution and balance of an aircraft.
Regarding claim 8, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum to cause the move item window to comprise a passenger center-of-gravity indicator that displays a center-of-gravity position of the passenger assigned to the selected seat. Doing so would be useful for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 4. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum to cause the move item window to comprise a directional switch that displays forward and aft options for a direction in which the seat is facing, and wherein the directional switch is selectable for switching the seat icon between forward facing and aft facing and the directional switch highlights a presently selected direction. Doing so would enable a user to plan a direction a given seat faces, and highlighting a present direction would quickly make a user aware of how a seat icon is currently oriented.
Regarding claim 10, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum teaches the limitations of claim 9. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink and Tattenbaum to cause a seat center-of-gravity indicator and a passenger center-of-gravity indicator to automatically update corresponding center-of-gravity information when the seat icon direction is switched between forward facing and aft facing. Noting that a seat’s center of gravity may shift relative to the airplane when a seat’s orientation changes, updating seat and passenger center-of-gravity information would reflect this change to a user.
Regarding claim 15, the additional limitations of claim 15 would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the additional limitations of claim 16 would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the additional limitations of claim 17 would have been obvious for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites a method of using the system of claims 9 and 10 to switch a seat’s direction and which results in updating a seat’s center-of-gravity. These limitations would have been obvious for the reasons argued in the rejections of claims 9 and 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 20070255489 A1) in view of Fenton (US 20140367545 A1) and Sink (US 20140257879 A1), and further in view of Pacheco (US 9308998 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11.
Pacheco discloses an aircraft seat with a removable headrest (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pacheco with the invention of Jensen in view of Fenton and Sink by including a headrest indicator that displays an indication on a seat icon as to whether the corresponding seat includes a headrest, and wherein the headrest indicator is selectable for changing whether the seat icon includes a headrest. Aircraft seats may or may not have headrests and headrests add weight, therefore including the above would enable one to incorporate headrest information when performing weight and balance planning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857