DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 01/08/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding specification objection:
Applicant has argued that the specification objection has been overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that claim 20 falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter since it is now directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn this rejection accordingly.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-20 for being directed to an abstract idea, applicant has argued that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they “improve the manner in which information is displayed” and contribute to “solving problems related to navigation displays for aircraft and the manner in which information is conveyed to a pilot.” Applicant has also pointed to ¶ 14 of the instant specification and argued that dynamically displaying a first value for the first parameter on the navigation display provides an interactive visualization, improves the situational awareness of the flight profile, and saves crew time.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the display step is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as it amounts to mere data output that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). While the claimed display step could potentially be used to solve problems associated with navigational displays, there is nothing in the claims that requires such a practical application. The claims as currently drafted merely require the display of a first value for the first flight parameter(s) based on the first position selected. While this display could be used as part of a system that provides certain benefits like improving situational awareness or saving crew time, there is nothing in the current claim language that requires these benefits. For example, the claims as drafted encompass the display of a first flight parameter associated with the first selected position, where the displayed first flight parameter can be ignored by the user and not used for any practical application.
Applicant has also argued that the instant claims are similar to the claims in Example 37 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples because the claims include “additional elements utilized to dynamically display information to provide an improved navigation display,” which is similar to the automatic rearrangement of display icons of Example 37 and provides a practical application.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that this is an analogous example, as the claims of Example 37 recite the practical application as part of the claim language, whereas any potential practical application of the instant application is not found in the claims, and would instead need to be inferred based on the specification. Additionally, the claims of Example 37 recite a specific improvement over prior art systems, namely automatically relocating the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. This is a specific and unconventional feature that is included in the claim language. In contrast, the claims of the instant application recite a display step that does not go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art; MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) explains that the mere retrieving of information in memory and the mere output of data over a network are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. 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.
Applicant has also argued that dependent claims 3, 6-7, 15, and 18-19 recite limitations that serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they present “how the method is accomplished, further evidencing that the claims are applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Regarding dependent claims 8-9 and 17, applicant has also argued that reciting “displaying a pop-up window on the navigation display indicating the boundary limit in response to detecting user interaction with the navigation display” and “wherein the pop-up window is displayed for a predetermined amount of time” integrate the idea into a practical application because they help to solve problems such as “too much information being presented at once” in a meaningful way.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the limitations of claims 3 and 15 amount to additional mental process steps, as a human being could use pen and paper to execute the mathematical operations necessary to perform an interpolation or extrapolation to predict the first value of the at least one flight parameter. Further, the limitations of claims 6-9 and 17-19 amount to additional insignificant extra-solution activity using a similar rationale applied to the display step of claim 1; specifically, these are data output steps that do not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention, as consistent with MPEP 2106.05(g). Merely specifying that the first flight parameter is displayed with a modified attribute based on a predetermined condition being outside of a boundary limit, and that a pop-up window indicating the boundary limit is displayed for a predetermined amount of time in response to detecting user interaction with the navigation display does not sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. While these features could potentially be used as part of system that provides a practical application of the abstract idea, this practical application is not required by the claims as they are currently drafted.
For the reasons explained above, claims 1-20 are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant has argued that Kneuper does not disclose the steps of, “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; and dynamically displaying the first value for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display.” Applicant has argued that while Kneuper discloses the use of a play button that can be used to display information associated with different points on a flight plan, the use of this play button is different from the selection of a first position that is required by the claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, because selecting the play button of Kneuper ¶ 66 is equivalent to selecting a first position on the navigation display as claimed. Selecting the play button causes flight parameters to be dynamically displayed and updated so as to correspond with each position on the flight path. For example, when a user selects the play button, flight parameters associated with the origin location of the flight path are immediately displayed. This is equivalent to the claimed steps related to detecting a selected first position, predicting a first value of a flight parameter at the first position, and dynamically displaying the first value on the flight display. Accordingly, the prior art rejections have been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 13, and 20 each recite the step of “presenting on the navigation display a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display.” The examiner respectfully suggests removing the repeated phrase “on the navigation display.” Appropriate correction is required.
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. These steps each fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas, because they include a human mentally identifying the selected first position and predicting the first value of the first flight parameter(s) at the first position. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the 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 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)).
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 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 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)).
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, 4-5, 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kneuper et al. (US 2015/0356873 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kneuper.
Regarding claim 1:
Kneuper discloses the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for dynamically presenting a visualization of flight information on a navigation display.” (Kneuper ¶ 5: “a flight planning system for navigation of an aircraft is provided. The system includes a storage component having one or more instructions stored thereon, a touch screen display device, a processor coupled to the display device and a memory. The processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the storage component. The system further includes a manager configured to provide navigational views via the touch screen display device in an aircraft cockpit.”)
“the computer-implemented method comprising: presenting on the navigation display a window comprising a plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display.” (Kneuper ¶ 60 and FIG. 3 shown below: “The menu along the top of panel 400 in FIG. 3 includes, for example, an origin name indicator 410, an origin chart icon 411, a destination name indicator 412, a destination chart icon 413, a distance indicator 414, a duration indicator 415, an altitude indicator 416, an airspeed indicator 417, and a play button 418.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
707
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“obtaining, with a processor, an indication of at least one first flight parameter selected from the plurality of flight parameters.” (Kneuper ¶ 54: “Weather link (WX) 404 is configured such that selection thereof activates or deactivates a weather component of the flight planning system for displaying real-time and forecasted weather representations overlaid on mapping interface 429.” Additionally, Kneuper ¶ 65: “Altitude indicator 416 is configured such that selection thereof activates an altitude component of the flight planning system. Similarly, airspeed indicator 417 is configured such that selection thereof activates an airspeed component of the flight planning system.”)
“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; and dynamically displaying the first value for the at least one first flight parameter on the navigation display.” (Kneuper ¶ 66: “By touching play button 418, a virtual flight plan is displayed on mapping interface 429. Specifically, aircraft icon 420 moves from origin location 419 along flight path 421 to destination location 422. The virtual flight plan dynamically represents the aircraft simulating a projected path of the flight plan overlaid on mapping interface 429. In an embodiment, the virtual flight plan simulates the flight at an accelerated pace and displays the estimated remaining distance and duration via distance indicator 414 and duration indicator 415, which count down during the simulation. Virtual flight plan also illustrates a forecasted weather representation 423 overlaid on mapping interface 429, thereby enabling a pilot to visualize aircraft icon 420 dynamically encounter forecasted weather representation 423.” This teaches the claim limitation since a user can effectively select a position on the flight plan by using the play button 418.)
Regarding claim 2:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and Kneuper 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.” (Kneuper ¶ 66 discloses that play button 418 can be used to trigger a simulation of the flight plan that displays flight parameters including remaining distance, duration, and weather information. Since the play button can be used to simulate the entire flight plan, this teaches that different positions can be selected and have associated information displayed.)
Regarding claim 4:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” and Kneuper also discloses the method “further comprising presenting a configuration option for selecting the plurality of flight parameters on the navigation display.” (Kneuper ¶ 47: “Similar to other known graphical user interfaces, each ‘window’ or ‘panel’ may be provided with controls for closing or minimizing the panel to remove it from active display on the TSIP 210.” Also, Kneuper ¶ 53: “Favorites icon 403 is configured such that selection thereof activates a favorites component of the flight planning system for organizing information based on a custom list of favorite items.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 4,” and Kneuper also discloses “wherein the window is presented in response to detecting that the configuration option has been selected.” (Kneuper ¶ 47: “each ‘window’ or ‘panel’ may be provided with controls for closing or minimizing the panel to remove it from active display on the TSIP 210.” Also, Kneuper ¶ 53: “Favorites icon 403 provides a convenient one-touch link to display information for flight planning based on a custom list.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Kneuper 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.” (Kneuper ¶ 5: “a flight planning system for navigation of an aircraft is provided. The system includes a storage component having one or more instructions stored thereon, a touch screen display device, a processor coupled to the display device and a memory. The processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the storage component.”)
The remaining limitations of claims 13 are disclosed by Kneuper using the same rationale applied to claim 1, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-17:
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2 and 4-5 above, respectively.
Regarding claim 20:
Kneuper discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith for performing an operation.” (Kneuper ¶ 31: “On-board computer 201 includes for example non-volatile memory, software, and a processor. TSIP 210 serves as a user interface for computer 201. Memory stores software that includes machine readable instructions, that when executed by processors provide control and functionality of system environment 200 as described herein.”)
The remaining limitations of claims 20 are disclosed by Kneuper 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 Kneuper as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Shay (US 2017/0018196 A1).
Regarding claim 3:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” but Kneuper 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 Kneuper 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 6-8, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneuper as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kawalkar et al. (US 2017/0221367 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kawalkar.
Regarding claim 6:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” but Kneuper does not explicitly disclose “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.” However, Kawalkar does teach this limitation. (Kawalkar ¶ 34: “the processor 112 may categorize the anomaly by type, such as, concerning a threat, safety, or fuel; and, may overlay a symbol representative of the categorized anomaly on at least one of: a lateral map and a vertical map (FIG. 8 depicts symbols representative of anomaly type). Techniques for rendering symbols in a visually distinguishable form may also be employed. Such techniques may include the use of color coding, flashing, highlighting, and the like. For example, the decision support system 100 may render a categorized anomaly in a first symbol with a first visually distinguishable form (i.e., red) if the anomaly affects safety, and a second symbol in a second visually distinguishable form (i.e., amber) if the anomaly does not affect safety.”)
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 Kneuper by displaying a flight alert with a modified attribute based on a predetermined condition being met 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 7:
The combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 6,” and Kawalkar also teaches “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being outside of a boundary limit associated with the at least one first flight parameter.” (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 Kneuper 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 Kneuper 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 Kneuper 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 11:
Kneuper discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1,” but Kneuper does not specifically disclose “modifying the navigation display to indicate that the first value satisfies a predetermined condition.” 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.” Further, 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 Kneuper by displaying a flight alert with certain attributes to indicate a predetermined condition being met 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 12:
The combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 11,” and Kawalkar also teaches “wherein the predetermined condition comprises the first value being associated with a hazardous situation in the flight plan.” (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 Kneuper 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 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 6 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 19:
The combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar teaches “The flight management system of claim 18,” and Kawalkar also teaches “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.” (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 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 Kneuper 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 Kneuper 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.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 8,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the pop-up window is displayed for a predetermined amount of time.” However, Ramaiah does teach this limitation. (Ramaiah ¶ 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 Kneuper and Kawalkar by allowing the pop-up window to display for a predetermined amount of time as taught by Ramaiah, 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 or whether integrated into the flight planning method disclosed by the combination of Kneuper 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 Kneuper in view of Kawalkar as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shamasundar (US 2018/0277116 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar teaches “The computer-implemented method of claim 6,” but 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 that is disclosed by the combination of Kneuper and Kawalkar by displaying a flight parameter using a modified attribute when a value of the flight parameter is equal to a boundary limit as 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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