DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 05/18/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objections:
Applicant has argued that the claim objections are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. More specifically, applicant has argued that the amended step of dynamically displaying the first value “utilized by a pilot” for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display overcomes the rejections because this ensures that a practical application occurs. The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the utilization of the first value by a pilot is not positively recited, and because the claims provide no limits specifying how the first value is utilized by a pilot such that a practical application would be achieved. The claims as amended appear to only recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details specifying how the solution or outcome would actually be accomplished. Therefore, the claims do not recite a practical application or provide significantly more consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
The remaining arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 appear to be repeated from the previous remarks and have been addressed in the Response to Arguments section of the final Office action.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward a computer-implemented method for dynamically presenting a visualization of flight information on a navigation display. Claim 13 is directed to the corresponding flight management system, and claim 20 is directed to the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the abstract concept of presenting a visualization of flight information on a navigation display. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1, 13, and 20 by the mental process steps of detecting a first position selected on the navigation display associated with a flight plan and predicting a first value of the at least one first flight parameter at the first position based on the first position selected in response to detecting the first position selected on the navigation display. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, as they include a human mentally identifying the selected first position and then predicting the first value of the first flight parameter(s) at the first selected position. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1, 13, and 20, other than reciting a “computer,” a “processor,” and a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code,” nothing in the claims precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the inclusion of the “computer,” “processor,” and “computer-readable storage medium” language, the claims encompass a human performing a mental detection to determine a first position selected on the navigation display associated with a flight plan and performing a mental determination to predict a first value of the first flight parameter(s) at the selected first position.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 states that the method is “computer-implemented,” and further recites “a processor” that is used for performing the steps of the mental process. These limitations merely require the use of generic computer components (as supported by ¶¶ 74-79 of the instant specification) for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computing components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites steps of presenting a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display and obtaining an indication of at least one first flight parameter selected from the plurality of flight parameters. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are merely data gathering and data output steps that gather and output data as a necessary part of performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering and data output). Further, the recited step of dynamically displaying the first value utilized by a pilot for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Note that while claim 1 recites that the first value is “utilized by a pilot,” the claim appears to only recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any details specifying how the solution or outcome would actually be accomplished. Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite a practical application consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 13 recites a memory comprising executable instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions. The memory and processor are generic computer components (as supported by ¶¶ 74-79 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computing components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 13 also specifies that a navigation display is configured to display information associated with a flight plan of an aircraft. This step merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is a data output step that outputs data as a necessary part of performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering and data output). The remaining additional elements of claim 13 (i.e., the steps of presenting a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display, obtaining an indication of at least one first flight parameter selected from the plurality of flight parameters, and dynamically displaying the first value utilized by a pilot for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display) are analyzed using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code, which is merely a generic computer component (as supported by ¶¶ 74-79 of the instant specification) that is employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The use of such generic computing components for executing the process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The remaining additional elements of claim 20 (i.e., the steps of presenting a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display, obtaining an indication of at least one first flight parameter selected from the plurality of flight parameters, and dynamically displaying the first value utilized by a pilot for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display) are analyzed using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2B: The additional elements are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the recited computer, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are anything other than conventional computer components. Merely employing such generic, conventional computer components to execute the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein indicate that mere collection or receipt of data and mere storing and retrieving of information in memory are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). Additionally, Shamasundar et al. (US 2019/0096267 A1) ¶ 34 teaches that the display of current flight data based on user interactions with an interface is a well-known and conventional feature of the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed “presenting,” “obtaining,” and “displaying” steps merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Note that while the claims recite that the first value is “utilized by a pilot,” the claims appear to only recite the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting any details specifying how the solution or outcome is actually accomplished. Accordingly, this limitation does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, consistent with MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the reasons explained above, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether they are considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1, 13, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-19:
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 14-15, and 17 recite the additional mental process steps of detecting a second position selected on the navigation display associated with the flight plan; predicting a second value of the first flight parameter(s) at the second position; performing an interpolation or an extrapolation based on a second value of the first flight parameter(s) at a second position on the flight plan, wherein the first position is different from the second position; and detecting that the configuration option has been selected; detecting user interaction with the navigation display. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human being mentally performing the detection of the second position, mentally predicting the second value, using pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations required for performing an interpolation or extrapolation based on a second value of the first flight parameter(s) at a second position, and mentally identifying that the configuration option has been selected. Accordingly, the limitations as drafted encompass their performance in the human mind with the help of pen and paper.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 11, 14, and 16-18 recite the steps of displaying the second value for the first flight parameter(s) on the navigation display; presenting a configuration option for selecting the plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display; displaying the first value for the first flight parameter(s) by modifying at least one attribute of the first value to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition; displaying a pop-up window on the navigation display indicating the boundary limit in response to detecting user interaction with the navigation display; modifying the navigation display to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition. The step of presenting a configuration option is a step that outputs data as a necessary part of performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data output). Further, the steps of displaying the second value, displaying the first value by modifying at least one attribute of the first value to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition, displaying a pop-up window indicating the boundary limit, and modifying the navigation display to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition are mere data output steps that do not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Accordingly, these steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 only recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, and data output steps that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-12 and 14-19 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramaiah et al. (US 2014/0039734 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramaiah.
Regarding claim 1:
Ramaiah discloses the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for dynamically presenting a visualization of flight information on a navigation display.” (Ramaiah ¶ 19: “FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary aircraft visual display system 100 for displaying weather information. In the exemplary embodiment shown, the system 100 includes a processing unit 102, a database 104, a flight management system 106, a display device 108, a user interface 110, and a communications unit 112.”)
“the computer-implemented method comprising: presenting on the navigation display a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters.” (Ramaiah ¶ 36 and FIG. 4 reproduced below: “the visual display 200 provides weather information (weather information 402, 404, 406) on the vertical situation display view 260. In the depiction of FIG. 4, the visual display 200 provides weather information 402, 404, 406 in the form of wind direction, wind speed, and temperature at designated altitudes.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
617
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“obtaining, with a processor, an indication of at least one first flight parameter selected from the plurality of flight parameters.” (Ramaiah ¶ 33 and FIG. 3 shown below: “Selection 232 may include a ‘show info’ selection, and selection 234 may include a ‘show winds/temp’ selection. Other selections may be provided in the first menu 230, and selection 232 is discussed in greater detail below. To access weather information, the user selects the show winds/temp selection 234.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“and with the processor, upon detecting a first position selected on the navigation display associated with a flight plan: predicting a first value of the at least one first flight parameter at the first position based on the first position selected in response to detecting the first position selected on the navigation display; and dynamically displaying the first value utilized by a pilot for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display.” (Ramaiah ¶¶ 32-33 and FIG. 3 reproduced above: “in the example illustrated by FIG. 3, if the user desires weather information at a particular waypoint (e.g., waypoint (GUP) 286), the user utilizes a user interface (e.g. user interface 110) to select the waypoint (GUP) 286 on the lateral situation display view 210. In general, any of the waypoints or nonwaypoint positions along the flight path may be selected by the user. … To access weather information, the user selects the show winds/temp selection 234. In response, the vertical situation display view 260 may display weather information associated with the selected waypoint (e.g. waypoint (GUP) 286), as subsequently described.” Further, Ramaiah ¶ 26: “the user interface 110 is coupled to the processing unit 102 and may also be located within the cockpit of the aircraft and adapted to allow a user (e.g., pilot, co-pilot, or crew member) to interact with the system 100.”)
Regarding claim 2:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and Ramaiah also discloses the method “further comprising upon detecting a second position selected on the navigation display associated with the flight plan: predicting a second value of the at least one first flight parameter at the second position; and displaying the second value for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display, wherein the first position is different from the second position.” (Ramaiah ¶ 40 and FIG. 5 below: “the user may indicate a desire to view such information by selecting (e.g., "clicking on" with user interface 110 of FIG. 1) a horizontal position along an altitude line 516 associated with one of the displayed altitudes. For example, the weather information 506 is associated with a different waypoint (e.g., a waypoint other than waypoint (GUP) 286), such as waypoint (GUP4) 288 or any location along the flight plan. In general, the user may select any altitude and/or lateral position along the flight path. As such, the vertical situation display view 260 provides weather information 502 at an altitude of 3000 feet at waypoint (GUP) 286, weather information 504 at an altitude of 4500 feet at waypoint (GUP) 286, and weather information 506 at an altitude of 6000 feet at or near waypoint (GUP4) 288 along the flight plan.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
614
509
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and Ramaiah also discloses the method “further comprising presenting a configuration option for selecting the plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display.” (Ramaiah ¶ 33 and FIG. 3: “Selection 232 may include a ‘show info’ selection, and selection 234 may include a ‘show winds/temp’ selection. Other selections may be provided in the first menu 230, and selection 232 is discussed in greater detail below. To access weather information, the user selects the show winds/temp selection 234.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 4,” and Ramaiah also discloses “wherein the window is presented in response to detecting that the configuration option has been selected.” (Ramaiah ¶ 33 and FIG. 3: “Selection 232 may include a "show info" selection, and selection 234 may include a "show winds/temp" selection. Other selections may be provided in the first menu 230, and selection 232 is discussed in greater detail below. To access weather information, the user selects the show winds/temp selection 234. In response, the vertical situation display view 260 may display weather information associated with the selected waypoint (e.g. waypoint (GUP) 286).”)
Regarding claim 6:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and Ramaiah also discloses “wherein displaying the first value for the at least one first flight parameter comprises modifying at least one attribute of the first value to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition.” (Ramaiah ¶ 38: “The weather information 402, 404, 406 may be depicted in any suitable color, transparency, or manner. In one exemplary embodiment, the weather information 402, 404, 406 may be depicted in manner that indicates the temporal nature or validity of the information. For example, if the weather information 402, 404, 406 is white, the weather information is current, and if the weather information 402, 404, 406 is gray, the weather information may have expired.”)
Regarding claim 11:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and also discloses “modifying the navigation display to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition.” (Ramaiah ¶ 38: “The weather information 402, 404, 406 may be depicted in any suitable color, transparency, or manner. In one exemplary embodiment, the weather information 402, 404, 406 may be depicted in manner that indicates the temporal nature or validity of the information. For example, if the weather information 402, 404, 406 is white, the weather information is current, and if the weather information 402, 404, 406 is gray, the weather information may have expired.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Ramaiah discloses “A flight management system comprising: a navigation display configured to display information associated with a flight plan of an aircraft; a memory comprising executable instructions; and a processor in data communication with the memory and the navigation display and configured to execute the executable instructions to perform an operation.” (Ramaiah ¶¶ 19-21: “FIG. 1 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary aircraft visual display system 100 for displaying weather information. In the exemplary embodiment shown, the system 100 includes a processing unit 102, a database 104, a flight management system 106, a display device 108, a user interface 110, and a communications unit 112. … The processing unit 102 may be a computer processor associated with a primary flight display or other type of aircraft display. … Database 104 is coupled to processing unit 102 and may be a memory device (e.g., non-volatile memory, disk, drive, tape, optical storage device, mass storage device, etc.) that stores digital flight information as either absolute coordinate data or as a function of an aircraft's position.” Also, Ramaiah ¶ 24: “Using data retrieved (or received) from the flight management system 106, database 104, or communications unit 112, the processing unit 102 executes one or more algorithms (e.g., implemented in software) for determining the position of the various types of desired information on the display device 108.”)
The remaining limitations of claims 13 are disclosed by Ramaiah using the same rationale applied to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18:
Claims 14 and 16-18 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2 and 4-6 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 20:
Ramaiah discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith for performing an operation.” (Ramaiah ¶ 53: “The steps of a method or algorithm described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be embodied directly in hardware, in a software module executed by a processor, or in a combination of the two. A software module may reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art.”)
The remaining limitations of claims 20 are disclosed by Ramaiah using the same rationale applied to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
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.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaiah as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Shay (US 2017/0018196 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein predicting the first value of the at least one first flight parameter at the first position comprises performing at least one of an interpolation or an extrapolation based at least in part on a second value of the at least one first flight parameter at a second position on the flight plan, wherein the first position is different from the second position.” However, Shay does teach this limitation. (Shay ¶ 68: “An estimate for the wind at any point synthesized during trajectory generation can be found by locating neighboring waypoints where forecast winds are available, estimating the wind at the current altitude on each of the neighboring waypoints using vertical interpolation, and then estimating the wind at the current position and altitude by horizontally interpolating the winds between the two neighboring waypoints. The sensed wind information may be blended with interpolated wind information to provide the most likely winds at points in the trajectory ahead of the aircraft.” This at least teaches that predicting the first value comprises an interpolation as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 3, consistent with the specification, “performing at least one of an interpolation or an extrapolation” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the interpolation has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramaiah by using flight parameter data at certain points to perform an interpolation and estimate a value of the flight parameter at a new point as taught by Shay with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Shay ¶¶ 68-69 teach that this allows for flight parameter data to be predicted at any point along a flight trajectory, which can help to ensure that the flight plan is conflict-free. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that interpolation or extrapolation could be useful for predicting parameter values if known parameter values are only available for a limited number of points due to data constraints.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 3 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 7-8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaiah as applied to claims 6, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Kawalkar et al. (US 2017/0221367 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kawalkar.
Regarding claim 7:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 6,” but Ramaiah does not specifically disclose “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter.” However, Kawalkar does teach this limitation. (Kawalkar ¶ 28: “Non-limiting examples of anomalies include exceeding a maximum altitude, or a minimum altitude, exceeding a maximum airspeed, deviating from a flight path by more than a predetermined amount.” Additionally, Kawalkar ¶ 66: “Symbols representative of anomalies (806, 808, 810, and 812) are overlaid on the lateral map 802 at their respective location of predicted occurrence. Likewise, a symbol representative of an anomaly (818) is overlaid on the vertical map 804 at its respective location of predicted occurrence. In FIG. 8, the symbols are squares with a visually distinguishable background having letters enclosed. For example, S may stand for a safety concern, F for a fuel concern, and T for a threat. Shading, color, or other techniques may be employed to depict levels of concern.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramaiah by displaying a flight alert with a modified attribute based on a value of a flight parameter being outside of a boundary limit as taught by Kawalkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kawalkar ¶ 28 teaches that anomalies can indicate a value “exceeding a maximum altitude, or a minimum altitude, exceeding a maximum airspeed, deviating from a flight path by more than a predetermined amount.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these boundary limits are set to maintain flight safety, and so it would be important to distinguish a displayed notification to more easily gain the pilot’s attention and increase the likelihood of the anomaly being addressed.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Ramaiah and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 7,” and Kawalkar further teaches the method “further comprising displaying a pop-up window on the navigation display indicating the boundary limit in response to detecting user interaction with the navigation display.” (Kawalkar ¶ 68 and FIG. 9: “The user may select an anomaly, via user interface 102, to obtain more information about the anomaly. For example, in response to a user selection of entry 830, the MAX altitude restricted to FL350 entry, the decision support system 100 may display additional information. As shown in FIG. 9, pop-up window 902 provides additional alphanumeric and symbolic information associated with entry 830. In this example, the detail in pop-up window 902 provides additional information associated with entry 830, which indicates that the maximum operable altitude is restricted to flight level 350 (or 35,000 feet) due to an inoperative icing PACK, and further, displays a bar called an ‘optimal indicator’ 906 for a visual representation of the status of the aircraft based on the anomaly.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramaiah by displaying a pop-up window showing a threshold for the flight parameter when the user interacts with the display as taught by Kawalkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kawalkar ¶ 68 teaches that this can help to provide the user with more information about an anomaly. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that showing the acceptable boundary for the flight parameter would allow the user to address the anomaly more efficiently without having to seek the acceptable boundary from another source.
Regarding claim 12:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 11,” but Ramaiah does not specifically disclose “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being associated with a hazardous situation in the flight plan.” However, Kawalkar does teach this limitation. (Kawalkar ¶ 66: “Symbols representative of anomalies (806, 808, 810, and 812) are overlaid on the lateral map 802 at their respective location of predicted occurrence. Likewise, a symbol representative of an anomaly (818) is overlaid on the vertical map 804 at its respective location of predicted occurrence. In FIG. 8, the symbols are squares with a visually distinguishable background having letters enclosed. For example, S may stand for a safety concern, F for a fuel concern, and T for a threat. Shading, color, or other techniques may be employed to depict levels of concern.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramaiah by displaying a flight alert with certain attributes to indicate the presence of a hazardous situation as taught by Kawalkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Kawalkar ¶ 34 teaches that this can help to visually distinguish certain alerts that more urgently require the pilot’s attention.
Regarding claim 19:
Ramaiah discloses “The flight management system of claim 18,” but Ramaiah does not explicitly disclose “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter or at the boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter.” However, Kawalkar does teach this limitation. (Kawalkar ¶ 28: “examples of anomalies include exceeding a maximum altitude, or a minimum altitude, exceeding a maximum airspeed, deviating from a flight path by more than a predetermined amount.” Additionally, Kawalkar ¶ 66: “Symbols representative of anomalies (806, 808, 810, and 812) are overlaid on the lateral map 802 at their respective location of predicted occurrence. Likewise, a symbol representative of an anomaly (818) is overlaid on the vertical map 804 at its respective location of predicted occurrence. In FIG. 8, the symbols are squares with a visually distinguishable background having letters enclosed. For example, S may stand for a safety concern, F for a fuel concern, and T for a threat. Shading, color, or other techniques may be employed to depict levels of concern.” This disclosure at least teaches the predetermined condition comprising “the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter” as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 19, consistent with the specification, “the predetermined condition compris[ing] the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter or at the boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the word “or” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ramaiah by displaying a flight alert with a modified attribute based on a value of a flight parameter being outside of a boundary limit as taught by Kawalkar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kawalkar ¶ 28 teaches that anomalies can indicate a value “exceeding a maximum altitude, or a minimum altitude, exceeding a maximum airspeed, deviating from a flight path by more than a predetermined amount.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these boundary limits are set to maintain flight safety, and so it would be important to distinguish a displayed notification to more easily gain the pilot’s attention and increase the likelihood of the anomaly being addressed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaiah in view of Kawalkar as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ramaiah et al. (US 2016/0047674 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramaiah ‘674.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Ramaiah and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 8,” but does not specifically teach “wherein the pop-up window is displayed for a predetermined amount of time.” However, Ramaiah ‘674 does teach this limitation. (Ramaiah ‘674 ¶ 68: “Icons that flash or pop up may continue to do so until the pilot acknowledges them, or they may time out on their own.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramaiah and Kawalkar by allowing the pop-up window to display for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ramaiah ‘674, because this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Removing the pop-up window after a specified amount of time would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the flight notification method of Ramaiah ‘674 or whether integrated into the flight parameter display method disclosed by the combination of Ramaiah and Kawalkar. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dismissing the pop-up window after a period of time could replace other possible dismissal triggers such as the pilot making a selection to remove the window.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaiah as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shamasundar (US 2018/0277116 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
Ramaiah discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 6,” but Ramaiah does not explicitly teach “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being at a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter.” However, Shamasundar does teach this limitation. (Shamasundar ¶ 39 discloses “upon reaching the pre-determined threshold value and after displaying the initial format condition instruction symbology, displaying an threshold format condition instruction symbology, different from the initial format condition instruction symbology, indicative of the value of the condition instruction being equal to the pre-determined threshold value as follows: for an altitude condition, the difference between the altitude value and the altitude of the ownship aircraft is equal to the predetermined threshold vertical distance; for a position condition, the position value is equal to the predetermined horizontal distance; and for a time condition, the time between the future clock time and the current clock time is equal to the predetermined amount of time. The threshold format symbology may involve the use of a different color, such as yellow.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramaiah by displaying a flight parameter using a modified attribute when a value of the flight parameter is equal to a boundary limit as is taught by Shamasundar with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Shamasundar ¶ 39 teaches that this can help to provide the flight crew with advance notice that a flight condition is about to be met. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that giving the flight crew advanced notice in this way could help them to avoid flying in prohibited airspaces or prevent potential collisions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights